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
214 points (96.1% liked)
Religious Cringe
899 readers
343 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
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.
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.
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".
Simple: just deny his denial. Now he has to provide proof.
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.
Latin and Greek are like the Ornstein and Smough of Western prescriptivism.
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
If we did away with organized religion, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.
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
(18 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."
7 idiots need to leave Lemmy forever.
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.
I don’t know if I would view this as tautological. I think the premise that whipping out a latin phrase based upon an arbitrary determination that whoever speaks now has to provide proof - now placing the burden on any opposition - is just avoiding a good faith argument entirely. Refusal to qualify a statement with objective fact and reason. We already experience the results of this shitty logic in social media spaces where anyone can spew objectively false statements and the burden of disproving it falls on critics. Sealioning and butwhataboutism follow, while the original speaker avoids ceding anything.
Whipping out Latin phrases is such a religious peepo thing. They eat that shit up without getting the message. It wouldn't be so tragic if the Latin phrase weren't an idea central to science being completely misunderstood. lol
E: Need to clarify that the Burden of Proof itself isn't central to science, but its relationship to hypotheses testing is.
I like that the answer, as far as I know growing up in a Catholic school, is that religious people are aware of this argument, but they think they have a foolproof answer that boils down to: "whoah, what a mysterious dude."
view more: next ›