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...
2,836 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 ›
Before your judge others, or claim any absolute truth... (sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net)
submitted 2 months ago by tag737
[–]Sauroctonos 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago
Did you know that magenta isn't a color found in the visible spectrum? It's actually created in the brain as an interpretation to simultaneous exposure to violet and red wavelengths. This is fascinating because though we can "see" pink light, it is not color found in the natural world and is a product of our brains trying to rationalize an odd situation.
[–]Jtcor 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
there should only be 6 colors in the rainbow a swell, but greeks wanted 7
[–]clanhelio 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
Our brain's got this color wheel that it can't quite fit on the visual spectrum, so that's more or less why magenta exists in the form that it does. No color is found in the natural world, anyway
[–]LanceWackerle 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
I finally understand the Down's Syndrome potato meme now
[–]yellownumberfive 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
Logical Fallacy: Argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
[–]Boccard -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago
Where exactly has this fallacy been committed?
[–]yellownumberfive -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago
Are you kidding? Not knowing the absolute answer to EVERYTHING is no excuse or reason for entertaining BULLSHIT - which is clearly what this trite little piece is entreating us to do.
which is clearly what this trite little piece is entreating us to do.
This is just your interpretation, you attempting to read between the lines. Nowhere does it state: Because of this ignorance, 'x' must be true.
[–]yellownumberfive -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago
No, it suggests that because we don't know EVERYTHING we in effect know nothing and cannot employ deductive or inductive reasoning.
I haven't explored the entire universe, but I will state with absolute fucking certainty that unicorns and leprechauns do not exist. Same goes for Yahweh as it is laid out in the bible.
[–]wikipediaBot -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago
Leprechauns:
A leprechaun (Irish: leipreachn) is a type of fairy in Irish folklore, usually taking the form of an old man, clad in a red or green coat, who enjoys partaking in mischief. Like other fairy creatures, leprechauns have been linked to the Tuatha D Danann of Irish mythology. The leprechauns spend all their time busily making shoes, and store away all their coins in a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If ever captured by a human, the leprechaun has the magical power to grant three wishes in exchange for their release. Popular depiction shows the leprechaun as being no taller than a small child, with a beard and hat, although they may originally have been perceived as the tallest of the mound-dwellers (the Tuatha D Danann).
For more information click here
[–]Boccard -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago
What an absurd notion to deduce. Instead of treating this like some sort of poem and stating what you think it suggest you can look at what it actually says. Which is simply humility or rather humbleness at the unexplored sections of the universe.
I would agree with the last one, because the god laid out in the bible is logically impossible. But this is not true for the first two. No positive or negative statement on the truth value of their existence can be made, since they are not logically impossible.
[–]gigashadowwolf 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
No, that conclusion does not exist without you to draw it.
My interpretation of the piece is hardly absurd, it's pretty damn reasonable considering the context and possible motivations of the poster.
I'm not even going to entertain the bullshit about leprechauns and unicorns.
[–]Boccard 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
As one with no reply would.
it's pretty damn reasonable considering the context and possible motivations of the poster.
Two possibilities: Potentially giving an argument for the existence of god, potentially criticizing the judgmental view of religious certainty which has been present for centuries.
I think you might have missed the second one.
[–]yellownumberfive 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago
I didn't miss either, and BOTH would have led me to the same interpretation.
Do you REALLY want to discuss leprechauns and unicorns? If so, feel free to make a logical argument for them. Be that guy. Entertain the absurd because your pretentiousness has clouded your reason and common sense.
Even though they are two completely different interpretations stating two different things... right.
If so, feel free to make an logical argument for them.
A horse with a horn on its head does not hold any impossible properties, nor does a small Irish man wearing green. Therefore it passes the 'logically possible' test if you will. Now whether these entities are found in reality is dependent upon evidence. I have seen neither evidence for nor evidence against such creatures ergo its existence cannot be rationally labeled either way.
Entertain the absurd because your pretentiousness has clouded your reason and common sense.
Rather ironic that you use the label of pretentious.
Unlike you, I do not find my subjective gauge of absurdity to be an accurate measure of reality. I may not like a property we find, I may think only a mad person thinks this to be true, but in no way does that change the truth.
[–]Hail-the-Anglosphere -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago
Post fallacies. Win arguments. I love when people "refute" an argument by saying it's a supposed fallacy, then not actually presenting any information in support of their point.
[–]Boccard 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Derp.
;D
One thing I take issue with: The existence of the rainbow (That being light reflecting inside raindrops a certain way) is not dependent upon conical photoreceptors, but rather the ability to directly see such a rainbow is. The spectrum of color that a rainbow displays would still be measurable.
[–]Bluka 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
And we know all that thanks to science.
[–]RobO2112 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago
Judging others is a moral necessity. You need to know whether or not you want to associate with an individual, how else are you to come to that conclusion without forming an opinion based on your observations/experiences?
"The precept: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged' . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.
There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.
The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: 'Judge, and be prepared to be judged.'
The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one’s mood, one’s memorized slogans or one’s snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare that 'everybody is white' or 'everybody is black' or 'everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,' is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment.
To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, 'instincts,' or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer 'Why?' and to prove one’s case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer."
[–]greend88 -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago
I may see less than 1% of colors. But as far as I know no one has seen more than 0% of god.
[–]reelaizer -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago
It goes both ways :)
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
[–]Sauroctonos 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Jtcor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]clanhelio 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]LanceWackerle 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Boccard -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]yellownumberfive -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]Boccard -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]yellownumberfive -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]wikipediaBot -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Boccard -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]gigashadowwolf 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Boccard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]yellownumberfive 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Boccard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Hail-the-Anglosphere -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]Boccard 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Boccard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bluka 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RobO2112 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]greend88 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]reelaizer -2 points-1 points0 points ago