2:16 Believing does harm. In 2011, people gave up their life's savings to Herald Camping because they believed the rapture was going to happen on May 21. May 22 came without a hitch, and those who destroyed their own lives because of a belief were harmed by it.
4:17 your question assumes that what is good or evil is a matter of decision by a who instead objective fact. You are arguing for a subjective morality instead of an objective morality.
2:05 no, taking a chance on belief would require me to accept every religion is true, which is impossible. This is why Pascal's wager fails, and always will fail. It is based on the false premise that the only options are the specific version of god the proposer of the wager accepts or no god at all, and that simply is not representative of what we actually see.
0:11 It's impossible for everything I dismissed to be true. I dismiss both mainstream Christianity, which claims minimally that Jesus actually existed as the incarnation of God, and the notion that Jesus is a whole cloth myth. If everything i dismiss is true, then Jesus would need to simultaneously be both completely fictional and also the real incarnation of God, which is a contradiction. Therefore, it is impossible for everything i dismiss to end up being true. This age old question is answered very easily as "it's not possible that everything i dismiss can end up being true."
3:47 We can see gravity. We can see love. Existence has no origins. Existence has always been. Your examples of things believed without evidence are actually well evidenced. The speaker is just ignorant of that evidence.
4:12 the word "if" is doing all the heavy lifting in this video, making it entirely circular. "If my beliefs are true, then my beliefs are true, then my beliefs are true" is a useless tautology and is the best the video offers.
4:25 Saying morality is set by a personal being at all makes it subjective. You just want that subjective morality to have a position of authority. You are arguing for subjective, authoritarian dictatorships where right and wrong is decided by fiat, not facts.
2:16 Believing does harm.
In 2011, people gave up their life's savings to Herald Camping because they believed the rapture was going to happen on May 21. May 22 came without a hitch, and those who destroyed their own lives because of a belief were harmed by it.
4:17 your question assumes that what is good or evil is a matter of decision by a who instead objective fact.
You are arguing for a subjective morality instead of an objective morality.
2:05 no, taking a chance on belief would require me to accept every religion is true, which is impossible.
This is why Pascal's wager fails, and always will fail. It is based on the false premise that the only options are the specific version of god the proposer of the wager accepts or no god at all, and that simply is not representative of what we actually see.
0:11 It's impossible for everything I dismissed to be true.
I dismiss both mainstream Christianity, which claims minimally that Jesus actually existed as the incarnation of God, and the notion that Jesus is a whole cloth myth. If everything i dismiss is true, then Jesus would need to simultaneously be both completely fictional and also the real incarnation of God, which is a contradiction. Therefore, it is impossible for everything i dismiss to end up being true. This age old question is answered very easily as "it's not possible that everything i dismiss can end up being true."
We appreciate your thoughts, see our play list 'oneness of God', we hope you'd love it.
3:47 We can see gravity. We can see love.
Existence has no origins. Existence has always been.
Your examples of things believed without evidence are actually well evidenced. The speaker is just ignorant of that evidence.
4:12 the word "if" is doing all the heavy lifting in this video, making it entirely circular.
"If my beliefs are true, then my beliefs are true, then my beliefs are true" is a useless tautology and is the best the video offers.
4:25 Saying morality is set by a personal being at all makes it subjective.
You just want that subjective morality to have a position of authority. You are arguing for subjective, authoritarian dictatorships where right and wrong is decided by fiat, not facts.