328
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago

Prove that god exists

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I'm not the one using God to substantiate claims.

I hope this is not difficult to understand.

not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Here.

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God's gift to "rational thinking"... yet their (supposed) "rational thinking" falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames"

Not big on history, are you?

description of a tangible manifestation of a being

You really are obsessed with God's existence (or lack thereoff), aren't you? I guess I had a hard time following because it's not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn't it?

[-] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.


Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn't happen.

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.


No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it's going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it's a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the "Just to pre-empt...." quote mentions relative "real"ness.


Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.


Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.


You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it's not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.


This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

  • Bad faith arguments
  • References to things that didn't happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn't relate to the "argument" being made
  • Fallacies in place of actual points
  • Personal attacks
  • Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
  • Complaints that i'm pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
  • Equivalent of "I'm not arguing with someone who clearly doesn't understand "
  • lol
  • lmao
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

Are all edgelord liberal atheists this thick or is this just you? I'm going to assume that you understand how quotes work? You know... like the one that you yourself used?

Again, point at where this happened,

Already have. And you have failed to address it - not surprisingly.

This is my reply blah, blah, blah

If you are an example of atheism's (alleged) "rationality" it's perfectly clear why your shit-stained excuse of an argument is so thoroughly rejected everywhere except circle-jerks such as this.

Good bye.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

So, in summary, you just want to argue with people about things.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Pretty sure they just need to argue to feel good about themselves

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
328 points (97.4% liked)

science

14595 readers
258 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS