So the logic is that, whoever speaks first is the one who has to prove it? In that case we can go back to the earliest time these guys ever came up that there was this single deity named God. They never proved him back then, never did so now.
Simple: just deny his denial. Now he has to provide proof.
Oh shit, he said something in Latin. Saying something in Latin means it’s always correct since it sounds so clever. Quod erat demonstrandum, the argument ends there.
Everyone knows quiquid latine dictum sit altum videtur
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
1: I’m not afraid of the inferior siege engine.
2: that’s an amazing quote, where is it from?
Used to be an old BBS thing back in the day
it’s fairly easy to prove that no god exists.
jainism is a religion which negates the existence of god. islam is a religion that negates the existence of any god but their almighty.
if there did exist a god, s/he would not allow a situation where both these religions can co-exist. because any god except allah is excluded by islam, and allah themself is excluded by jainism.
ergo, god does not exist. quad erat demonstrandum.
if there did exist a god, s/he would not allow a situation where both these religions can co-exist.
All this proves is that he doesn’t care about the intricacies of organised religion, not that he doesn’t exist.
This reminds me of Ricky Gervais joke:
So you believe in one God I assume… there about 3,000 to choose from. So basically you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 Gods, and I don’t believe in just one more.
7 idiots need to leave Lemmy forever.
I mean he’s got a point. You brought it up, why are you telling others to prove it?
Bro literally brought up logical fallacies that the first person was using
No, the first person is using burden of proof correctly and the second person is incorrect about any logic fallacies. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
the burden of proof is not on whoever “speaks”, like the second person incorrectly states, but whoever makes a specific type of claim. The first person is not making a claim of that type by saying “there is not a God” and therefore does not have any burden of proof, but someone who says “there is a God” is making a claim of that type and must prove it before it can be believed
In the teapot example, if I say “there isn’t a teapot floating orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars” I have no burden to prove this before it can be believed, because there is no evidence of the teapot existing. If you claimed the teapot did exist, you’d need to provide evidence of it
Another way to think about it is, imagine someone says “God doesn’t exist”, someone else says “prove it!”, and, for the purpose of the thought experiment, they actually somehow did produce hard evidence that objectively settles the dispute. Did they “prove that God doesn’t exist” or did they “disprove the existence of God”? You can’t prove a negative, so it is the latter. The existence of God is the actual “claim”, so saying “God exists” requires burden of proof, but “God doesn’t exist” is not a “claim”
If we did away with organized religion, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.
Greed, fear, and ignorance are the causes of all our woes.
Religion is just how the worst people look themselves in the mirror afterwards.
You could say this at basically any point in hunan history and it would still be true
Oh! I disagree! I think religion probably served an incredible useful purpose in our social development.
Think about this: 500 years ago, or 1000, in some village somewhere, John hates Micheal. Or maybe John just wants Michael’s cow or land or pants. What’s stopping John from killing Micheal? Like, who’s gonna even know it was him? Some magical man in the sky who sees all and knows all? And what would that guy even do! Does he have powers to send you to a horrible place? Or curse you?
Oh…
So does he have rules you gotta follow? What’s the payoff?
Oh…
So how do I learn these rules, and stay on this guys good side?
Guess John probably won’t kill Micheal. Not yet anyways. Best keep sky daddy happy.
Now did the “good” outweigh the bad? Did it ever? And at what point in human history did that ratio shift and the good no longer outweighed the bad? Are there reasons/situations/people where this is still a valuable tactic?
Discuss.
A lot of religions were quite progressive at the time they came up. The proplem is that the world changed a lot, while religions didn’t.
Most people don’t want to kill other people. It turns out this is true with or without religion. We never needed it to do this. However, religion does tell people it’s good to kill people from other religions.
Edit to add this quote I remembered:
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
-Penn Jillette
