Fine. Here we go:
God exists.
I cannot prove this claim, so it must be untrue.
There, I fixed it.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
243 points (96.2% liked)
Religious Cringe
909 readers
243 users here now
About
This is the official Lemmy for the r/ReligiousCringe***** subreddit. This is a community about poking fun at the religious fundamentalist's who take their religion a little bit too far. Here you will find religious content that is so outrageous and so cringeworthy that even someone who is mildly religious will cringe.
Rules
-
All posts must contain religious cringe. All posts must be made from a religious person or must be showcasing some kind of religious bigotry. The only exception to this is rule 2
-
Material about religious bigots made by non-bigots is only allowed from Friday-Sunday EST. In an effort to keep this community on the topic of religious cringe and bigotry we have decide to limit stuff like atheist memes to only the weekends.
-
No direct links to religious cringe. To prevent religious bigots from getting our clicks and views directs links to religious cringe are not allowed. If you must a post a screenshot of the site or use archive.ph. If it is a YouTube video please use a YouTube frontend like Piped or Invidious
-
No Proselytizing. Proselytizing is defined as trying to convert someone to a particular religion or certain world view. Doing so will get you banned.
-
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No exceptions.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So the logic is that, whoever speaks first is the one who has to prove it? In that case we can go back to the earliest time these guys ever came up that there was this single deity named God. They never proved him back then, never did so now.
no but see that was olden times so it doesn't count, only now once it's an established assumption does this rule go into effect and count.
unless I think of a new thing I want you to believe. then it has a teensy weensy time-out while I say that, then it's back in effect again.
Oh shit, he said something in Latin. Saying something in Latin means it's always correct since it sounds so clever. Quod erat demonstrandum, the argument ends there.
Wingardium leviosa mf
Levi-oh-SAAAAAAAAAAAH you pleb
Everyone knows quiquid latine dictum sit altum videtur
I just want to add Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
1: I'm not afraid of the inferior siege engine.
2: that's an amazing quote, where is it from?
Used to be an old BBS thing back in the day
Latin and Greek are like the Ornstein and Smough of Western prescriptivism.
Simple: just deny his denial. Now he has to provide proof.
That’s a well charged battery
Well since you said it... I now need you to prove its well charged.
Well since you said that you need to prove to me it's not well charged.
Clearly they are miss-underestimating the implications of the axiom habet multam industriam or… something like that?
Now that you all said your stuff, I want proof that you said it, as per the lorem ipsum eunt romanes axiom
What is this supposed language you SAY exists? I need proof of this alleged... "Latin".
If we did away with organized religion, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.
You could say this at basically any point in hunan history and it would still be true
load more comments
(14 replies)
Greed, fear, and ignorance are the causes of all our woes.
Religion is just how the worst people look themselves in the mirror afterwards.
Why "organized"? We see sects spontaneously emerge from belief in magic, sometimes with deadly consequences. Do away with religion altogether, organized or not is irrelevant -- and the "organized" part sometimes helps keep the lunatics under control
load more comments
(5 replies)
That's a triple negative. So Zenith there, having made the third strike, is out.
Wait, that's not what the three strikes rule means? Well I mean according to Zenith's logic it is. You can't tell me he's right and I'm wrong twice. My double negative cancels out to a positive.
it's fairly easy to prove that no god exists.
jainism is a religion which negates the existence of god. islam is a religion that negates the existence of any god but their almighty.
if there did exist a god, s/he would not allow a situation where both these religions can co-exist. because any god except allah is excluded by islam, and allah themself is excluded by jainism.
ergo, god does not exist. quad erat demonstrandum.
if there did exist a god, s/he would not allow a situation where both these religions can co-exist.
All this proves is that he doesn't care about the intricacies of organised religion, not that he doesn't exist.
ah. if she does not care about the intricacies of organised religion, can we then conclusively state that all organised religions proselytising the word of god are therefore bullshit?
surely the all-powerful god, glory be in her name, would not allow false organised teligions to exist?!
If a traditional God exists, it's most likely a trans dimensional being that is vastly beyond our comprehension. It's silly to assume anything by it's behavior or lack of such.
But yes, organised religion declaring they talk for or understand such a being are obviously bullshit.
This reminds me of Ricky Gervais joke:
So you believe in one God I assume... there about 3,000 to choose from. So basically you deny one less God than I do. You don't believe in 2,999 Gods, and I don't believe in just one more.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It has to be like the axiom said otherwise the axiom doesn't work.
Gee thanks pal.
"That's an awful nice axiom you have there. Would be down right awful if something should happen to it."
I think a better way of phrasing it is that I don't know that a god exists (as in, any god, I can be quite certain that the god of the Torah or Bible is too logically incoherent to exist). I admit I don't know. But that doesn't mean I should act as though one does, especially as I wouldn't know which mutually exclusive one it would be if it did exist.
The burden of proof is on one who makes a claim to knowledge, either that a thing does exist, or that it doesn't exist. The default state is agnosticism, or admitting that you don't know, not simply disbelief.
Edit: In fact, the OP's original statement seemed to be agnostic in nature, admitting that they couldn't prove that god didn't exist, but since they couldn't prove that god did exist either, that they shouldn't waste their time acting as though it did ('pretending').
It was only the believer who misunderstood them as seeming to claim that god definitely didn't exist, but then they got into a sidetrack discussion about the burden of proof, rather than just correcting the believer's assumption about OP's belief.
An even easier way of saying it is "I'm not convinced god exists"
load more comments
(23 replies)
The lack of omnipotence is tautological. Can a theorized seity make a rock so heavy, the deity cannot move it? If he cannot make it, he is not imnipotent. If he makes one he cannot move, then he is not omnipotent. Adding qualifications about logical consistent omnipotence is just dissembling and lame excuse making.
load more comments
(3 replies)
More like zenithAIBot
view more: next ›