89
Pope's official prayer app commits cardinal sin, leaks 700K users' info (www.theregister.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/atheism@lemmy.world
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

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

    "poor understanding of science"

    😐

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent