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
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.
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."
7 idiots need to leave Lemmy forever.
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"
Yeah, no. It isn't the claim that requires proof, only the claim of something existing that requires proof.
Repeated attempt to verify whether something exists not supporting the thing's existence is strong evidence that it doesn't exist.
It's the claim of knowledge that requires proof, whether that knowledge is about a thing existing or about it not existing, of about anything else, such as it being red. The only belief that doesn't need proof is a lack of knowledge.
Edit: if I'd never seen a black swan, and therefore concluded that since I had no proof that black swans existed, to believe that black swans definitely don't exist, but then one day I was shown a black swan, my initial belief would have been proven incorrect.
However, if I instead initially believed that I didn't know if black swans existed, and that I had no evidence to believe that they did, when I was shown one I could update my belief to that they did exist, without my previous belief being wrong - it was simply a lack of knowledge.
My claim is "there is not a unicorn in my garage", and I can prove that.
It is invisible and pissed that you haven't let it out to eat in days!
You do realize you are claiming the same thing as someone who claims there is no god because all evidence points to a lack of a god the same way you would have proven the lack of a unicorn, right?
Perhaps a bad example. My definition of unicorn is that it can't be invisible, and is the size of a normal horse.
Still, you can prove the non-existance of a thing given certain parameters like location or time.
So all of human history when we are proving that deities don't exist.
Not exactly, because we can't prove the non-existance of a spiritual realm we can't measure.
In this case it's less about burden of proof, and more about the basic epistemological stance of reserving judgment until evidence has been provided.
Atheism is a response to the claim that deities exist. They are fictional characters who are said to exist with literally zero proof of their existence.
How much evidence is needed to prove something doesn't exist? How do you prove that something doesn't exist?
Reserving judgement is a geeat stance, but how many more thousands of years of disproven religious and spiritual claims are needed to be enough to say gods don't exist any more than bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, and werewolves?
The lack of evidence for something to exist is not inherently a problem. Take for example black holes, they were only theorized before discovery.
You don't need to prove something doesn't exist, it's just a moot point. For any skeptic, as a matter of epistemology, not having any proof is as redundant as having proof for its nonexistence.
The lesson religious people need to learn, is as aforementioned; not having proof should be the disqualifying factor, not proof to contradict their established beliefs
Yeah, no. Any claim has the burden of proof. If you say, "there is no god," then it is absolutely on you to show your work. If you say, "I do not accept the claim that there is a god," that requires no proof because it's not a claim. This is basic logic.
You're absolutely wrong. You cannot prove a negative. In a strictly logical sense it's the person making the positive claim that is required to show proof. A negative claim can only ever be strongly inferred.
Technically true, but it's childishly easy to disprove almost any god as defined by popular religions. It's easy because the followers make it easy, with their claims of action.
"Just pray and God will always reveal himself"
Well, that's easy then. I did A, B didn't occur, so obviously this god as defined doesn't exist. Of course, most religious people will immediately walk back their claims if you do this, but that's basically them changing their definition of god.