I thought about saying "you know it's a grift when they collect personal information and leak it." According to their Bible, you don't need an app to pray. They say church (or a covenant, I forget, it's been 30+ years since I read the KJV) is when any two people come together to talk about Jesus (sorry!). So, where does an app fit in? And why does that app need your personally identifiable information (referred to as PII in industry). Wouldn't an all-knowing God already have it?

But you don't have to know it's a grift... I feel like this is proof the Vatican (or whoever made this app on their behalf, and thus speak on their behalf... and the Pope allegedly speaks on God's behalf) themselves know it's a grift. Because why would they need your PII?

I know, fools and their money are soon parted... just saw this on /all and figured the Fediverse's top Atheism comm should have it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (33 children)

We do what? Have evidence for god and/or free will? We do not. Go ahead and provide your best, I will explain how it is fallacious or inaccurate.

Existence is evidence of existence, no creator implied. If you want to pretend everything requires a cause, then so does god, otherwise you're falling for the special pleading fallacy.

The choices we make are a result of biological processes, not magic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Who do you think designed those biological processes, Frater/Soror?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Why are you assuming they were designed at all? We evolved our brains and emotions this way because each child born is unique, different from both parents. Some of these changes enable longer lives, reproduction, more children. Those that don't survive long enough to reproduce, their genes and behaviors do not get passed down. We were not designed to fit this world, and we are still evolving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Seems like a good system, a really good one. I wonder who designed it.......

    Evolution is God's way of creating us, and we are still evolving, yes, but the process of evolution wad created by God.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    So your god intentionally designed a “system” that gives unborn babies brain cancer such that their lives are nothing but a few moments of misery…. and you want us to worship it?

    Or that god is an intelligent designer, who just happens to forget how women worked, and gave a law that required stoning 60% percent of women because that’s the number of women that don’t actually bleed the first time they have sex.

    In reality, this is just you failing to understand the theory of evolution. We’re not finely tuned. We’re not perfect systems. We’re a mess of mostly random bullshit that functions solely on account of a long line of organisms being a little better at some things than others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Stop stealing credit for natural processes, shitbag.

    Evolution is God's way of creating us, and we are still evolving, yes, but the process of evolution wad created by God.

    He designed us to get sick and die young despite doing nothing wrong? He designed the bad mutations because he loves it when we suffer?

    Fuck you, death cultist. You are defending the indefensible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (25 children)

    Special Pleading fallacies appear when you argue that something is different but it isnt.

    And human beings rely on eachother and other components of an ecosystem, as we are not God, it is shown accurately that we do not exist of ourselves.

    If one truly existed of himself, he would have no dependencies, that one is God.

    God has no dependencies, he doesn't need us or depend on us but he loves us.

    Thus, to claim that God does not exist is to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (18 children)

    If one truly existed of himself, he would have no dependencies, that one is God.

    So, yes, special pleading. Your claim is that everyone (presumably everything ( requires a "dependency"... except god because he is special.

    Grow up, your cult is killing us.

    God has no dependencies, he doesn't need us or depend on us but he loves us.

    You don't know what love is. Is god too weak to prevent cancer, or too cruel to care?

    Thus, to claim that God does not exist is to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing.

    Nope. To claim god doesn't exist is to accurately represent reality as we sense it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    It is not. Imagine a series of gears. One of them has to start spinning to start up the entire series. The gears cannot suddenly start spinning from nothing.

    God is neither weak nor cruel. Just because we may not understand his plan for his does not make either true.

    What do you mean "no"? You didn't bring forth an argument at all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (16 children)

    Imagine a series of gears. One of them has to start spinning to start up the entire series. The gears cannot suddenly start spinning from nothing.

    False equivalence. The universe is not a series of gears, we do not understand it well enough to reduce it to such a rudimentary example.

    God is neither weak nor cruel. Just because we may not understand his plan for his does not make either true.

    He is both weak and cruel, according to the bible. Thwarted by chariots of iron. Regularly uses violence to solve problems of his own making, commands his followers to take young sex slaves after killing their families.

    So you have no explanation for children's cancer wards, yet you insist on worshipping the god you think is responsible for them. That's really sick.

    What do you mean "no"? You didn't bring forth an argument at all?

    You keep making claims without evidence. There's nothing for me to disprove. I'm trying to help you understand so you stop spreading deadly bullshit.

    You said:

    to claim that God does not exist is to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing.

    What need? This led us to the gears, a bad analogy to support your special pleading fallacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (15 children)
    1. Causality can be interpreted as a series of gears. One thing is caused by the other.

    2. Verses?

    And the need is that of relying on other things to survive. If the sun disappeared, you would die, thus you depend on the sun. If all the arachnids and the sort died, the ecosystem would be rattled and we'd all die. We depend on other things to live. That is my evidence for this claim, as we can observe.

    And to deny God's existence is to claim that what requires all (the universe, it depends on a lot of factors to survive) requires nothing (Does not require God to exist).

    This is a logical contradiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    Causality can be interpreted as a series of gears. > > One thing is caused by the other.

    If you say so. But that would include god, in that case.

    Verses?

    The honest answer: we don't know. Probably not god, certainly not the christian god.

    If the sun disappeared, you would die, thus you depend on the sun.

    This is extremely reductive and unimaginative. What if we find a way to replace the light, warmth, vitamins etc we get from the sun? Heck, maybe we could even make a version that doesn't give us cancer, one-upping your fictional god.

    If all the arachnids and the sort died, the ecosystem would be rattled and we'd all die. We depend on other things to live. That is my evidence for this claim, as we can observe.

    This says nothing about the origins of the universe. It wasn't made for us, we evolved to survive.

    And to deny God's existence is to claim that what requires all (the universe, it depends on a lot of factors to survive) requires nothing (Does not require God to exist).

    No. Atheists are not making a claim. You are making a claim that god exists based on nothing but wishful thinking and a poor understanding of science. We deny that claim because there is no evidence to support it.

    This is a logical contradiction.

    All you have is god of the gaps and special pleading. You have failed to convince me or anyone else with integrity that your god exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    "poor understanding of science"

    😐

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Absolutely. You identify the process of evolution based on evidence (well done, some theists can't even manage that), and then you attribute it to a creator despite there being no reason to make that jump.

    Faith is weakness, an assumption made in the absence of fact and stubbornly held despite what any evidence might suggest.

    You worship the god of the gaps. "We don't know, so it's probably god." But it's probably not. "We don't know" means it could be anything. The odds of your baseless guess being correct are virtually zero.

    Meanwhile, real people are being harmed as a result of your beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    When you see a painting with the artist's signature, what is more likely?

    That there is an artist that painted it? or the brushes of paint rolled around the paper in a certain way due to the wind and it was created?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence suggesting the existence of a god. How do you even define "god"? It is human wishful thinking every time.

    If there was sufficient evidence, I would still be a believer. But when I am as honest as I can be, I see nothing at all in this universe to suggest a god's existence, much less the christian god, who is described in contradictory ways because biblical authors were not consistent with themselves or with each other. Loving + powerful = no need for suffering. God is unimaginative. Stupid. Cruel. Non-existent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The gears extending infinitely would be a Reductio Ad Absurdum, so one gear must be the start of it all.

    ???

    Definitely not within your lifespan, and definitely not fast enough if the sun actually disappeared.

    I am making a claim by saying "X isnt real"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    The gears extending infinitely would be a Reductio Ad Absurdum, so one gear must be the start of it all

    So god also requires a cause. The only alternative is special pleading.

    Definitely not within your lifespan, and definitely not fast enough if the sun actually disappeared.

    Why did god choose to make a sun that gives us cancer?

    I am making a claim by saying "X isnt real"

    Atheists are "making the claim" that we don't believe your claim, because there is no argument, evidence, or reason supporting your claim. You not only assume there is a god, you then assume to understand why he created suffering, even though you have not been able to explain it. He cannot be both powerful and loving, if he existed at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    No, he doesn't. He is of a different nature.

    Why do you think its ok to eat chicken but not human flesh? Because we of a different nature than chickens.

    Thus, God is also of a different nature than us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    No, he doesn't. He is of a different nature.

    Special pleading.

    Why do you think its ok to eat chicken but not human flesh? Because we of a different nature than chickens.

    Because a society that tolerates needless cannibalism is unsustainable. And because prions. But also, I don't think it's okay to eat chicken.

    Thus, God is also of a different nature than us.

    Special pleading. Aren't we each of a "different nature", as individuals? Define "nature".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Its not special pleading if its ACTUALLY special.

    We are not of a different nature. For man has the nature of man, and a pig the nature of a pig.

    2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something

    Example: helping them to realize the nature of their problems

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Its not special pleading if its ACTUALLY special.

    But it's not actually special, evidently. Evidently, it does not exist, and special pleading is your excuse for believing it.

    We are not of a different nature. For man has the nature of man, and a pig the nature of a pig.

    I have the nature of me, you have the nature of you. It's arbitrary, meaningless.

    1. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something

    Example: helping them to realize the nature of their problems

    You haven't answered anything. I can just say the nature of the universe is the universe. The nature of god is that he does not exist.

    Try getting more specific.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It is not a special pleading fallacy when we talk about God's existence, as He exists through himself, and has all in himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    But it is special pleading. Why can't the universe itself be like that, no god needed?

    Can you even define "god"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Because then, you'd be trying to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing, a logical contradiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    what has need of all has need of nothing

    What need are you talking about?

    You still haven't answered how god solves this problem yet we can't apply the same logic to existence itself. You are still using special pleading to assume a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I described the need.

    Please read the comments I made above.

    And it is because that God is of a different nature than of his creation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I described the need. Please read the comments I made above.

    Are you talking about the gears analogy? Again, it's a false equivalence. Wouldn't god just be another gear, also in need of something to start it turning?

    And it is because that God is of a different nature than of his creation.

    Ah. Special pleading. You see that's exactly what it is, don't you?

    The universe doesn't need a god, based on everything we know so far. You need a god because you are scared and selfish. You would rather outsource your thinking and morality no matter how many people it kills.

    Fuck you for choosing death.

  • source
  • parent