• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    A little try-hard r/atheist isn’t it? I mean I agree with the sentiment but there’s gotta be a less anti-theistic way to share it.

  • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    So weird that Christians love ideas like this when it comes to capitalism but not their own personal behavior.

    There’s a word for it

    Hypocrisy? Hypocrite? Infidel?

    No that’s not it.

    I think it’s just “Christian”

  • ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I got to say this is pretty cringe. A good mix of millennial and militant atheist humor. Spending that much time making that needlepoint is serious commitment haha

    Edit: I apologize that my comment comes across as rude to OP. I was debating commenting it and thought my comment was more on the type of humor but I don’t want to make anyone feel bad.

    Not a fan of militant(!) atheists but I also shouldn’t be rude.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Correct but wording it as an altered Bible quote implies the evidence is against God when truth it is far more neutral

        • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.

          Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.

          The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 hours ago

            but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.

            wut

          • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?

            Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?

            (Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)

            Christians don’t teach people that they are god.

            What religion works the way you described?

            None of them. Yikes.

            “God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.

            It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.

            Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.

            Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.

            • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?

              Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?

              (Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)

              What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?

              Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.

              Christians don’t teach people that they are god.

              Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.

              What religion works the way you described?

              None of them. Yikes.

              Pretty much all of them do…

              “God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.

              Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out

              “ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

              It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.

              What’s inane?

              Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.

              Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.

              It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”

                • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.

                  Can you prove free will exists?

                  Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.

                  Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.

                  Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              When did Radical ever say religion teaches people that they are God? That’s a claim you made.

      • ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I fully agree but this is clearly a play on a passage from the Bible so I understood it as I described

      • ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Don’t mean to make it more than anything. Just thought someone going to the trouble making this is cringey. Not an attack on you!

        Edit: You’re right. I’m sorry for making you feel bad.

        • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          “Just thought someone going to the trouble making this is cringey.”

          I gotta disagree with you on this one; I’m a huge fan of what I call “high effort shitposts”. I think the effort is charmingly absurdist