How does the quote "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.?" prove anything? Obviously someone with a little common knowledge can see the error in this type of thinking to try to disprove any religion. I may have faith but if my faith isn’t based on facts then is it even considered faith? If I have faith without facts then sure the faith doesn’t prove anything but what if I have faith and facts. What then? Anyone mind telling me how this is a valid argument for atheism?
A "lunatic" will believe things based on his own perception of reality, and I’m not sure it’s wise to believe that our perception is much better.
I threw that in quotes because the idea of a lunatic is quite relative, and the idea of an asylum is archaic. My source for this is the book "Madness: A Brief History" by Roy Porter.
Faith, while based in fact, by definition requires belief without solid scientific proof.
I’d like to clarify my position as not an atheist, but as an agnostic. I think it’s just as foolish to believe something without concrete proof as it is to disbelieve something because of a lack of concrete proof. For example, while there are many equations that explain the nature and strength of gravity, there are none that explain its source. Quantum physicists are looking into that as we speak, but the answer eludes them. Am I to stop believing in gravity because we can’t locate its source? I don’t think so. Agnostic: Just a fancy word saying "I don’t know, and I don’t even know how to find out."
What can I say, concrete proof is big to a lot of people. A leap of faith is a tough thing to accomplish. Just because a lot of people wholeheartedly believe something doesn’t make it true, and a loony bin is a vivid example (though flawed) of a group of people who strongly believe things that anyone with common sense can see is wrong.