use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
2,841 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.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
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
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 ›
The difference between faith and insanity (imgur.com)
submitted 5 months ago by ShootStation
[–]bornewinner 54 points55 points56 points 5 months ago
But it says they mean the same thi...
[–]WoadRaider 29 points30 points31 points 5 months ago
Shhhhhhh!
[–]Darktidemage 33 points34 points35 points 5 months ago
faith = believing in something fake.
insanity = writing off the right hand margin of your page and not giving a single fuck.
[–]learnebonics 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
Wait, what page? WHAT PAGE!?
[–]epic_narwhal64 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
It goes off the margin in the description of faith and insanity.
[–]spots_the_difference 17 points18 points19 points 5 months ago
ERROR CANNOT PERFORM FUNCTION
[–]Andynym 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
nicely done
[–]jorawub 18 points19 points20 points 5 months ago
"The main difference between capitalism and communism is that under capitalism people oppress people, while under communism it's the other way around"
[–]Bitshift71 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
This?
"In communism, man oppresses man. In capitalism, it's the other way round" - Winston Churchill
Although I couldn't find a proper secondary source to attribute this to Churchill.
Anyone?
[–]atheist_maybe -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 months ago
Not...... really. Sorry. Arguably, the problem's with the system today are actually not capitalistic ones, because lobbyists and a biased government damages the free market.
[–]Buffalox 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago
You know the free market means the strongest survive.
To keep the market competitive and open to new players, it has to be regulated not free.
The cognitive dissonance among economic libertarians is astounding. They blindly believe old disproven theories. It's like a religion to them.
[–]metnavman 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
YOU MEAN I CANT HAVE A MONOPOLY?
-.-
[–]atheist_maybe 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
First, I am not a libertarian, second, we seem to have different definitions of free market. You see, I believe a truly free market would be one where the strong aren't free to suppress other businesses at a whim. Because you see, large businesses can prevent freedom in a market, the same way a government can.
Just about the most freest economy in the world is that of Switzerland. And they are a highly successful government, extremely peaceful, secure, powerful, and rich. The free market really does work, when you do it right. And the swiss aren't like what Ron Paul would espouse, the government still protects it's people and even gives them money for healthcare. It does, however, run the health care system.
So we should be like the Swiss. Not communists, where people will try to manage supply and demand, fail, and die, not socialists, whose states in Europe are drowning under a sea of debt, not slaves to the large corporations who can impose their will on states and small business through unfair means(lobbyists, fucked up copyright laws), but a truly free market.
/endrant.
[–]elcheecho 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
here is what i don't get about libertarian philosophy. the government cannot be trusted to regulate markets in any way, therefore we should trust them to rigorously enforce contracts.
wut?
[–]atheist_maybe 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Don't ask me, I am not one.
[–]maybe_atheist 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
The question is, will every economic framework work for every country? Switzerland is quite a different environment than the US.
A good enough question. Often, the real question is one of production, large companies are very good at producing lots of stuff, and the U.S. economy does need that production. However, it doesn't mean they need lobbyists or government bailouts.
[–]Buffalox 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Then we are in perfect agreement. I didn't actually say you are a libertarian, but many people seem to fall for their ideology regarding a "free market" preferably completely without regulation.
[–]atheist_maybe 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
I agreed with someone on the internet during a debate? I thought this day would never come.....
[–]Buffalox 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago*
Just out of curiosity, because I don't actually know that much about Swiss economy, how is it different from the "socialists, whose states in Europe are drowning under a sea of debt"
As I understand it, it falls under what I would cal socially responsible capitalism, and isn't very different from for instance Germany.
Switzerland has a large amount of debt, yes, but but unlike states like Germany, the UK, and France, it is actually a net international creditor, it is owed more money by other countries than it owes other countries. It has low unemployment, low inflation, and stable growth. It maintains an incredibly well balanced budget, and doesn't end up with large surplus's or deficit's, unlike quite a few other countries(including he U.S.). It's inflation rate is less than 1/10 of the Euro's.
It, for example, doesn't have socialized medicine, last I checked.
It has low unemployment, low inflation, and stable growth. It maintains an incredibly well balanced budget
Nice ;)
But isn't that more due to simple fiscal responsibility than being socialist or libertarian?
Still it has universal health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
The universal compulsory coverage provides for treatment in case of illness or accident (unless another accident insurance provides the cover) and pregnancy. Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalization of the insured.
What happens if you require expensive medicine? Isn't that part of "medical treatment"?
Universal healthcare isn't libertarian, or socialist, but it doesn't damage or limit the free market, in my opinion. The difference between state-run government health care and health-care the government pays for should be pretty clear. Although perhaps the real problem here stems from when I described the European states as socialist, which isn't entirely accurate. They do, however, spend a heck of a lot more money on government programs, which is why they have so much debt.
[–]imasunbear 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Libertarian atheist reporting in.
Why should a group of people be able to use force to enforce their will on others?
Would you be okay with one person using force on another person? What about a small group of people using force on another person? What about a large group of people using force on another person? Why should society be able to use force to impose morality on an individual who doesn't agree with that morality? As long as that individual isn't abusing the rights of anyone else (by theft, or destruction of property) why should the government (a group of people wield power and force) be able to impose morality on them, whether that morality be social conservatism or fiscal liberalism? When you use government to take away (and yes, universal healthcare is the government taking away) it is morally wrong.
You are an individual, but you are an individual in a society, if you want to go all ego tripping and not give a shit about anything, fine with me, but I don't want to live an such a society.
If you believe we should work together to achieve the best possible society for all, with mutual respect and personal freedom, OK then let's talk about how we can best achieve that.
A good society helps the individual prosper way beyond what would be possible to achieve alone. Good regulation levels the playing field, making it possible for more to play, and the game to play better.
If you are mad because you can't poison people with trans fats, or because you need to pay some taxes to maintain the society you profit from. Then fuck you very much.
Form that society. Go ahead, I have no qualms with it. Just make it voluntary. Give people the option to say "no"
Not everyone agrees with you, not everyone wants to have a government protect them and not everyone agrees with what the government does. Do you think it's right that the government currently spends your money on a war on drugs? I sure as hell don't. Do you think it's right that the government currently spends your money subsidizing oil and Monsanto? I don't.
But to have a government do what you think is right has no basis in morality. So you want to have a government provide for its constituents healthcare. Okay. I don't want that. I think that's wrong. Should I be forced, with threat of jail at gunpoint, to fund public healthcare? Where's the morality in that.
If you do it voluntarily that's great. Set up a commune where you share your wealth and provide for others, but don't force everyone to join you.
A good society helps the individual prosper way beyond what would be possible to achieve alone.
I couldn't agree more. Society is great, let's work together. If we can come together and prosper in a way that is beneficial to everyone involved, that's a beautiful thing. But if either one of us thinks that our agreement isn't beneficial, we should be completely able to cut off our agreements and go our separate ways. Once an outside force comes in and takes away my ability to make my own decisions, we've left the realm of a "good society" and dropped into a nanny state. A good society hinges on the ability of individuals to make their own choices and accept the consequences of those decisions, with the only "safety net" being voluntary, private donations from individuals who want to give their money to those less fortunate.
If you are mad because you can't poison people with trans fats
Why shouldn't I be able to sell food with trans fats? If using trans fats makes my products cheaper, and people are willing to trade the health benefits of zero trans fats foods for cheaper food, why shouldn't we be able to make that agreement privately? If I think that I'll be able to sell more product by getting rid of them and by labeling it as "trans fat free" or something similar, that would be a wise business move. The market only needs one regulator, and that regulator kicks the FDA's ass. The consumer. If a consumer is willing to pay more for a product because it's free of trans fats, you better believe companies are going to start selling trans fat free products for a premium. I hate to be condescending, but it's really simple economics. The more demand for a certain product, in this case a healthy alternative to trans fats foods, the more the supply needs to rise to meet that demand. And if people want to save money and buy the food with trans fats, they should be able to make that decision.
because you need to pay some taxes to maintain the society you profit from
Taxes are theft. It doesn't get any simpler. And I only "profit" from this society you claim to adore because I have no alternative. I'm only "profiting" from this society because I have no choice on the matter. Perhaps I'd "profit" from a society that doesn't take my money and give it to causes I don't necessarily agree with. Perhaps I'd "profit" from a society that allows individuals to make decisions more than a society that punishes risks and socializes loss. Perhaps I'd "profit" from a society that would have allowed the banking giants to crumble rather than prop them up with large bailouts. But I'll never know. I'll never know because I don't have a choice, I'm forced to pay taxes, and I'm forced to give my money to institutions of which I do not agree with. My vote doesn't matter, because I'm forced to act against the way I vote. There is no freedom, only coercion.
I only "profit" from this society you claim to adore because I have no alternative.
Yes you have, go away, far far away.
[–]Buffalox -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Why shouldn't I be able to sell food with trans fats?
That's it, I'm not even interested in arguing on that level.
I should be able to sell Anthrax. But as soon as it's used to harm someone else, that's when the government steps in. Just the same as any other product. Cocaine should be legal, but if someone uses cocaine to harm someone else without consent the government should step in and use the legal system accordingly. The same holds true for trans fats. If you sell foods high in trans fats, I should be able to buy it. If I use that food to negatively harm someone else then I'm liable, but if I use it for my own purposes, say to eat it, no one's at fault. I bought it, I used it, I accept any repercussions on my body for its use. No crime.
.
[–]jorawub 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Lobbyists and biased government may be a problem in the U.S., but it certainly isn't as big in every capitalistic country in the world. Your argument is invalid.
Furthermore, it was just a funny expression that is a bit similar to the one posted, not a criticism of the governing system(s)
My argument is not invalid. They do damage the free market, regardless of the nation they are in, I think. It really is just public bribery. You really just jumped to a conclusion that "My argument was invalid". To debate well, you have to explain why my argument is invalid, and you didn't really do that. No offense, that just kind of bugs me.
I am fully aware that lobbyists (the successful ones, anyway) are damaging a totally unregulated free market. What I pointed out was that the EXISTENCE of lobbyists is not a problem in every capitalistic country in the world.
Several European markets are effectively free market, and work efficiently - such as already mentioned Switzerland. Sweden and Norway are other great examples. The majority of business in these countries are run fully free market, even though the government intervenes in certain markets.
If you want me to explain further why your argument is invalid, please ask.
But, that wasn't even my argument..........
It pretty much was. I posted a random quote, you pointed out that the problem with capitalistic markets today are lobbyists, I pointed out that there are several capitalistic markets who do not have problems with lobbyists.
To state that they don't have problems would be wrong. They have less problems caused by lobbyists because the lobbyists have less power. Don't tie the success of an economy to lobbyists. Also, I really don't even see what lobbyists have to do with a capitalistic system. Capitalism means a free market, it doesn't necessarily imply lobbyists.
[–]molecularmachine 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Yeah... no. Unless the definition of free market has changed recently I would have to say that countries like Sweden, with one of the highest taxes in the world and the government holding a monopoly on retailing alcohol would not be a free market. Also taxes on certain goods going up, such as alcohol and cigarettes, regularly to hike up prices and try to discourage people from buying it would also indicate Sweden is not a free market example.
As I acknowledged in my own post, I know that all the examples I listed do have specific markets where there are regulations. If being totally deregulated in each and every small domestic market is what it takes to be a "free market country" I don't think there are any left. If I'm not wrong, there are taxes in the U.S. aswell, no?
For the sake of the discussion, though, I will allow you to use your definition of a free market economy (as long more than just the U.S. fall under your definition.) Specify this, and I will gladly continue the discussion.
Are you telling me that you can combine the phrase free market with a country where the GOVERNMENT has a MONOPOLY on the RETAIL of ALCOHOL? This means you cannot get your alcohol through any other channel besides the government within the country. No competition in the field of alcohol. You can go to private doctors and dentists, but you cannot buy alcohol from any other place than the government store, unless you have a friend who can get you smuggled stuff from Germany.
I'd love to work from you definition of a free market economy instead. But I highly doubt Sweden would fit in there.
Well, the liqour is pretty much overflowing at every pub and bar, and the goverment sure doesn't own them.
I see no reason why ALCOHOL in itself would violate a free market country if it was the only market the government intervened in.
Anyways, the actual definition of a "free market" is that it is ruled under the laws of supply and demand. Most economics professors would agree that the best outcome for society as a whole be that we gained perfect competition for this - there are endless suppliers, and in effect they have to set prices where the price equals marginal cost.
Such a solution sadly never happens, due to for example entry barriers due to sunk investment costs, lock-in of consumers etc. This could lead to monopolies, where the consumers end up holding a very bad hand. Monopolies are though, an effect of a free market.
As such, the Swedish alcohol monopoly is not very far from a free market - the company still tries to make a profit. The only difference from a free market is that the barriers to entry are changed by the ruling laws ("there can only be one company.")
Still, if your definition of a free market is the lack of government barriers to entry, I can accept that.
Then we get to the core of the issue here, which is - how do we define a free market COUNTRY? Any country will have innumerable different "markets" - all depending on your definition of a specific market (using a SSNIP-test or whatever...)
Do you want me to come up with a percentage of how many markets should be fully deregulated, or do you deal in absolutes? No intervention at all? The U.S. also has a Competition Authority, much like the EU and other western countries. I highly doubt you will find any country fully intervention free.
If you ask me, I think that a fully capitalistic government is as big a pipe dream as a fully communist government. They're just theories on a paper. Hence my starting quote.
But tell me, please. What is your percentage limit? How do you measure this percentage in a good way?
A single drink at the pub can set you back around $7 for a beer and $13 for a one shot drink. (USD) All import and production of alcohol used to be a monopoly as well until Sweden joined the EU, and the government had a big hand in the ownership of the largest import and production company until 2008. The government is privatizing now, but up until recently has owned large chunks of a bank, stock exchange, real estate company and financing company. They also hold a monopoly on pharmaceuticals that they are looking to sell off, or have started, I don't know.
Either way I don't think government ownership and monopolies make for a very good free market. I also don't think that a country that regulates the market via increasing taxes on things such as alcohol, cigarettes and as of late they have suggested a specific taxation on junk food could be counted as a free market system where supply and demand is left to it's own devices, do you?
In the case of regulating the market with taxation the government is making undesirable products cost more regardless of how cheap the product it. The demand is artificially made to go down because of the higher cost as a result of higher taxes. In alcohol retail as well as pharmaceuticals (including simple Tylenol, at least when I last was there) the government have a monopoly with VERY strict opening hours and fairly high prices. A monopoly like that can not exist in a supply and demand driven society.
We're not dealing with percentages in that sense here. We are dealing with a very obviously regulated market that is in no way free. Regulations? Yes, in place, but not just to ensure that there IS competition but to ensure a lessening of demand regarding "undesirable habits" effectively trying to drive products out of the country by regulating the market via taxation. Monopolies allowed as long as they are government owned, even though they are being sold off now... not entirely to the benefit of the Swedish economy, I might add.
Intervention and regulations to ensure a competition rich environment would not be against a free market as such, but blatant manipulation and regulation of the market through taxes in order to dictate demand as well as several monopolies on various things would not be compatible with a free market in my opinion. Main thing I have a problem with? The monopolies.
[–]Bracco19 10 points11 points12 points 5 months ago
I posted this like a month ago..and got nothing from it...you get front page....you bastard.......
[–]dwaxe 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
Karma is not always just and verdant.
[–]Hypersapien 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Did you delete it? Because I went to upvote it and it wasn't there.
[–]thatsroughstuff 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
It's funny because there is no difference.
[–]Bomgui 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
facebook status!
[–]jtisch 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
a bibliography on a bathroom wall?! RESPEKT!
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Can I ask; why didn't you just write that a LITTLE to the left?
[–]thatISballer 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
F = P
[–]PKMKII 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
As screwed up as it sounds, from a psychological standpoint it's not insanity if it's a viewpoint shared by your culture.
[–]dakdestructo 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
Insanity is a minority of one.
Probably paraphrasing, but Orwell said it.
[–]Muzak__Fan 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I'm more concerned why this seems to be displayed on the wall like it's an art exhibit.
[–]Laughingstok 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I kept reading it expecting a different result.
[–]winto_bungle 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Yes, I write all my favourite quotes over a crack in a shitty wall too!
[–]snuffl3s 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Reading this makes my headbrain hurt.
[–]trollin_gay 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Wait...but...oh. Ohhhh.
[–]Potunka 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Fuck this. There are already too many words in the English language that mean the same thing.
[–]Negro_Napoleon 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Thus again, my problem with religious moderates.
"Hey guys, we're not as bad as those fundies, right?"
[–]evilada 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Beautiful handwriting.
[–]dbe 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
The difference is that with faith, you've got a group of people reaffirming your insanity beliefs.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Um, faith isn't all bad.
What's wrong with having faith in YOURSELF and your abilities?
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Not sure that's the definition of insanity.
[–]Buffalox 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago*
Part of the definition of insanity includes that it is abnormal. So if insanity is common enough, it is not insanity but normal.
Superstitions/religions meet the criteria for insanity in every other way. It's just a question of degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity
"refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning"
I'm going to ignore that it is wikipedia for sake of laziness and I don't exactly keep a copy of the DSM IV with me (though if I recall Insanity isn't even a proper term anymore there)
"Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.
Now that in all it's complexity is not the same as this and all it's complexity
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.[1][2] Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single God or multiple gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[2] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief".
Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence. This is exemplified by attitudes about the future, which (by definition) has not yet occurred. Logical reasoning may proceed from any set of assumptions, positive or negative. In this view, faith is simply a positive assumption.
Now I know it's a joke, but what can I say I'm in the mood to rain on your parade...and I didn't even know I was in /atheism till now...I still don't know how that happened. =P
[–]Buffalox 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence.
Yes I can see how faith settles them nicely. /S
Except everything faith has told us, which has been examined and determined by science, shows that faith was wrong on every count. This went on for almost 2000 years, until faiths such as Christianity has nothing left. There are no more claims except the supernatural and unprovable. Everything else is proven false.
Faith is the worst possible way to examine any question, when a particular faith is proven wrong time and again, is it crazy to keep believing it?
An explanation on how the method is flawed:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/645249-jesus-the-easter-bunny-and-other-delusions-just-say-no
[–]ProN00b -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
For starters...last I checked isn't there actually some historical evidence that Jesus existed? Why would I believe someone who makes such a poor analogy in their title?
Why are you relying on someone else's opinion to justify yours? Unless he has some facts to back it up? Does Dawkins know the meaning of life and whatnot and just isn't telling us?
I'm sorry but until science can answer all the questions in the universe, are you just going to tell people not to speculate? As long as no one is forcing their opinion on me I don't care, including atheists. Also when was christianity proven wrong? Last I checked they have yet to prove god doesn't exist and whatnot.
Also faith =/= religion. The wiki definition showed that. Personally I think people that spend more time obsessing over religion than religious people might be a little bit delusional themselves. But hey that's just me.
[–]nbouscal 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
There is historical evidence that people believed that Jesus existed. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. That is to say, there are no contemporary records of his existence.
[–]ProN00b -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
I'll raise you a wikipedia source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence
It may not be a certainty, but it's not an unfounded claim that he existed. Whether he was a wizard or not on the other hand...
It's not a raise when the only sources that the article cites are Josephus and Tacitus, neither of which were contemporary with Jesus. As I said, there are no contemporary records of his existence.
Think there was more than those two there. Now what evidence is there he didn't exist? That alone makes the comparison to the easter bunny a poor one.
Like I said before if you need someone else's opinion to validate your own, you are not better than a bible thumper.
[–]nbouscal 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Wow, you are completely failing at reading comprehension. I never compared Jesus to the easter bunny. I never said there was evidence that he didn't exist. I never said anything other than that there is no contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed. I said that because it is a fact. You can try to cite whatever sources you want to, and I will continue to repeat that there is no contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed, because there isn't.
[–]Buffalox 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
For starters...last I checked isn't there actually some historical evidence that Jesus existed?
You obviously didn't bother to check, because if you did and actually found any evidence for Jesus, you would be the hero of Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE
Does Dawkins know the meaning of life
Dawkins has an opinion on the meaning of life, based on reasoning and facts. Religious people have an opinion based on superstition and faith.
I'm sorry
You should be, because from there everything is based on so many fallacies, it's hard to even comprehend how it's even possible to sustain such a level of cognitive dissonance.
until science can answer all the questions in the universe, are you just going to tell people not to speculate?
Science questions everything and actually thrives on speculations. The difference is that science afterwards try to actually decide the validity of these speculations. Religion on the other hand, claims to have all the answers, without the need to investigate whether there is any truth to them.
As long as no one is forcing their opinion on me
Not really a strong point for Christianity is it? Christianity requires you to try to force your point on others.
Also when was christianity proven wrong?
Are you kidding me. Pi = 3, the earth is flat, God created everything in a matter of days (in the wrong order no less, explained in two self contradictory ways), Noah's Ark, Jonah and the whale, Humanity only 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel.
Last I checked they have yet to prove god doesn't exist and whatnot.
I have an invisible dragon in my garage, prove to me that I don't, and I'll use your method to prove your God doesn't exist. I'll even make it easy for you. I also have an invisible pink Unicorn, you only have to disprove one of them.
Also faith =/= religion.
Who claimed that, and what's you point?
Religion is based on faith without evidence. Faith can be based on evidence. So religion is a subset of faith, based on the lowest and most useless kind of faith there is.
Personally I think people that spend more time obsessing over religion than religious people might be a little bit delusional themselves.
OK fair enough, what's the delusion? That religion doesn't exist?
But hey that's just me.
Unfortunately not, you are not alone, there are lots of people who think like you. That's the problem!
Oh fuck you did the point by point thing? Dam and it was such a nice day out too.
The wiki for jesus seems to indicate there is historical evidence he existed and historians christian or not tend to believe he existed.
What facts? Unless he knows the meaning of life and such his opinion on religion is no more valid than yours to me.
You should be, because from there everything is based on so many fallacies, it's hard to even comprehend how it's even possible to sustain such a level of cognitive dissonance
Yeah I'm gonna call trying to use fallacies as an argument fallacy on that.
That's the intention of science, not necessarily how all scientists act. Sometimes they let their own biases get in the way and don't like to accept that their theories may be wrong.
I never really got this argument because by the "burden of proof is on the accuser" deal...doesn't that mean Solipsism is the only acceptable viewpoint? I mean I can't prove that you exist, I can't prove that what I see and hear is actually there. So does that mean you are a Solipsist? By your own logic you must be. In that case why are you arguing with someone that you can't prove exists?
Who claimed that, and what's you point? Both you and the OP seemed to have implied it. Hence why it says the difference between faith and insanity.
OK fair enough, what's the delusion? That religion doesn't exist? I'd say there are multiple delusions. That your way is the right way (implied not stated), that religious people are insane (even though to have a mental disorder it has to be maladaptive, meaning only some would have a disorder). Oh and that you are any different than those damn bible thumpers trying to tell me what to think.
I'm sorry I don't really care what religion someone else is or if they are atheist. As long as they aren't an asshole.
Think I missed a few points to respond to but hey, according to your logic I don't exist so you can't blame me.
The wiki for jesus seems to indicate there is historical evidence
If you consider the Harry Potter books evidence for Harry Potter, then yes there is. Show just one piece of evidence, that fulfills even the most lax criteria for historical evidence.
That's like saying unless you know French you opinion on math is invalid. No one can define what the meaning of life should be for another person. If you claim you can do that, you are delusional and dangerous.
Sometimes they let their own biases get in the way and don't like to accept that their theories may be wrong.
That's what peer review is there to prevent. If you have evidence to something which is contrary to scientific belief, write it down publicize it, and get your Nobel Prize.
I never really got this argument because by the "burden of proof is on the accuser"
That's not true, the burden of proof is on the one with the claim. If you claim God exist, the burden of proof is on you, not on the one who choose not to believe without evidence.
doesn't that mean Solipsism is the only acceptable viewpoint?
No, and you failed to answer the question.
Both you and the OP seemed to have implied it. Hence why it says the difference between faith and insanity.
But you wrote:
So which is it?
I'd say there are multiple delusions. That your way is the right way
That's what the evidence says. What reason do you have for your way?
that religious people are insane
That's pretty harsh, but yes there are similarities.
Oh and that you are any different than those damn bible thumpers trying to tell me what to think.
I don't tell you what to think, I tell you how a certain way of thinking is flawed. Draw your own conclusions.
As long as they aren't an asshole.
Being fucked by some group of crazy people for 30 years, kind of make you mad at them. I don't hate every single Christian, some of them are nice and decent people, but I hate Christianity, and I particularly hate proponents for Christianity/Islam/Judaism. They are all equally bad.
according to your logic I don't exist
No that was your logic, not mine.
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago*
That analogy makes no sense. If I had said Jesus existed because bible that would work. If the evidence out there isn't enough for you, dunno what to say other than...ok.
Not sure if you know this but =/= means is not equal to. I assumed you knew this but your replies indicate you don't.
No, and you failed to answer the question. Explain to me in detail why "burden of proof is on the accuser" does not eventually come to that conclusion.
That's what the evidence says. What reason do you have for your way? I don' even know what your way specifically is. I'm guessing atheist but there are various types of atheists. If so there aren't really any facts pointing who is right. For the record if I were to label myself, I'd say I'm an agnostic theist who thinks that divine or not, Jesus was a pretty cool guy =D.
Yeah there are christian assholes out there. But...guess what you can be atheist and be an asshole too. I hate religious folk who make us all look like assholes, but nothing I can do. Also once again, assuming by crazy you mean they have some disorder, in order to be crazy the factor has to be maladaptive. So not sure labeling everyone who believes in the sky dragon god would be considered crazy.
No that was your logic, not mine. That was me carrying out your logic to it's inevitable conclusion. For a less sarcastic one, it would conclude that the only logical stance is to be agnostic, not atheist. Unless I'm missing something?
If the evidence out there isn't enough
There is none, point to one piece of evidence, you can't because it doesn't exist.
=/= means is not equal to
Yes I know, but one place you write "faith and insanity" and another you write "faith and religion", it's kind of hard to have a discussion, if you change the subject all of a sudden.
"burden of proof is on the accuser"
I never claimed that, I have no idea where you have that from, the burden is on the one with the claim. What claim did I make, that you want proof of?
you can be atheist and be an asshole too
Yes but it's not systematic organized and directed against anyone. Christianity is.
So not sure labeling everyone who believes in the sky dragon god would be considered crazy.
I see no reason why it should be considered crazy to label crazy people as crazy. But I didn't actually do that. I pointed out that there are similarities.
For a less sarcastic one, it would conclude that the only logical stance is to be agnostic, not atheist.
You are mixing terms again. Agnosticism is about the provability of God, Atheism is lack of belief in a deity.
You can be either gnostic or agnostic as both Atheist and Theist.
[–]DKdonkeykong -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
Faith does not necessarily have to be incompatible with the evidence.
[–]rotorkq 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
Although it's not as catchy, it's more accurate to say:
Faith is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with unsupported by the evidence
Whether the conclusion is incompatible with the evidence or not depends on what exactly one has faith in. For example, belief in a god isn't necessarily incompatible with any particular evidence. However, believe that the earth is 6000 years old is inconsistent with all kinds of evidence.
[–]DKdonkeykong 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Yeah I agree. This is the point I was trying to make.
[–]dinnie 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
Yes it has to be. From my brainwashed years as a Christian, this was drilled into my head.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seem."
It used to sound very profound to me, but then I realise that is just nonsense.
[–]learnebonics 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
When faith is compatible with evidence, I believe we call that "knowledge".
My faith that there is a teacup orbiting the sun between earth and mars is not incompatible with evidence, but you can not call that knowledge.
[–]mikeyx1230 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Oh hey, turns out I'm insane...I think I'll go back over to r/Christianity now, where even the Atheists don't spout such nonsense.
[–]eldubyar 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Nonsense? Faith is belief without evidence. I'd say it's pretty fair to call that insane. There's definitely nothing virtuous about it.
[–]mikeyx1230 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I wouldn't describe faith as a mental illness, nor as extreme irrationality. You should come over to r/Christianity, where the conversation has more substance than the childish old ploy of comparing faith to insanity.
[–]eldubyar 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I wouldn't describe faith as a mental illness, nor as extreme irrationality
And why's that?
Because if it was a mental illness, then we'd be implying that at one point in time, the entire planet was mentally ill, and that a large majority still is, and yet somehow psychologists never diagnosed it as such. Secondly, if its extreme irrationality, then we're all extremely irrational, because we all have faith in something, and you can pretend because you're an atheist that you don't, but you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
[–]SUMS_UP_POST -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
LOLZ RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE INSANE
It doesn't say religious people are insane, it says faith is insane. Criticism of a belief or characteristic is not necessarily criticism of the person as an individual. Good effort though.
[–][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 months ago
"Modern atheism: where millions of morons somehow arrive at the correct conclusion." ~NakedTonyDanza
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]bornewinner 54 points55 points56 points ago
[–]WoadRaider 29 points30 points31 points ago
[–]Darktidemage 33 points34 points35 points ago
[–]learnebonics 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]epic_narwhal64 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]spots_the_difference 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]Andynym 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jorawub 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]Bitshift71 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Bracco19 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]dwaxe 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Hypersapien 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]thatsroughstuff 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Bomgui 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jtisch 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thatISballer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]PKMKII 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dakdestructo 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Muzak__Fan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Laughingstok 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]winto_bungle 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]snuffl3s 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]trollin_gay 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Potunka 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Negro_Napoleon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilada 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dbe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Buffalox 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Buffalox 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]ProN00b -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]nbouscal 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ProN00b -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]nbouscal 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ProN00b -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]nbouscal 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Buffalox 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Buffalox 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ProN00b 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]Buffalox 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DKdonkeykong -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]rotorkq 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]DKdonkeykong 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dinnie 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]learnebonics 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DKdonkeykong 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mikeyx1230 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]eldubyar 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]mikeyx1230 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]eldubyar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mikeyx1230 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]eldubyar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SUMS_UP_POST -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]eldubyar 0 points1 point2 points ago