knock knock --"Who is it?" -"It's me, Jesus. Let me in." --"Why do you want in?" -"I want to save you."... --"Save me from what?" -"From what I'll do to you if you don't let me in.
+Barry Foster knock knock -- "It's me. I'm either Jesus, or I'm the Devil." -- "Well, I'm not going to let you in if you're the Devil, so say something that will prove to me which one you are. That is, something that the Devil would say but Jesus never would." -- "OK then... if you don't let me in, I'll torture you for all eternity." (long silence, door remains shut) -- "Why aren't you opening the door?" -- "I asked you to tell me something that only the Devil would say."
+John Oakley (1.) You cannot be "condemned" by an imaginary being who does not exist. Are you afraid of being "condemned" by leprechauns and unicorns, for not believing in them? (2.) Let me humour you for a moment and assume that a supernatural, unseen being named "Jesus" actually DOES exist, and if you don't "open the door" for him (e.g., agree to everything and anything that he demands of you), he both can and will "condemn" you to an eternity of fiendish torture in Hell? In that case (viz. my earlier parody of Barry Foster's amusing little "knock knock" joke), how would you be able to distinguish Jesus from the Devil, or any number of other malign supernatural beings, who also threaten you with cruel abuse, leading up to but not terminating with death, for slights real or imagined? In this example, Jesus is doing EXACTLY what you would expect an evil deity to do -- that is, "threaten you with outcomes that no responsible or 'good' (in a sense of the word 'good' that is intelligible to people of average intelligence) deity, possibly would". So you have no way whatsoever to distinguish between Jesus and the Devil; they both want to torture and murder you; the only difference is the window-dressing. (3.) What if an angel of Allah, or of Buddha, or of Crom, Set, Cthulhu, Baal, the Wizard of Oz or some other malign deity, comes and knocks on your door, threatening you with eternal damnation unless you exclusively believe in it (and / or its patron deity)? You can't please both "God" and "Baal", after all. Since both of them threatens you with torture and death... what's a good theist to do? Unless, of course, you recognize all the above as just rot that the priesthoods are fobbing off on you, so they can go around torturing, murdering, raping, oppressing and plundering, as they have consistently done down through the ages... because people are too stupid to realize that the whole puppet show is being run by that man behind the curtain.
***** "you are simply rejecting the grace and mercy of God" How can a god expect a rational, intelligent human to believe in something he has no rational evidence for? If a god 'gave' us the five senses, the only way we are able to make sense of our environment, then why aren't we able to see or hear him or understand him at all through those senses? A truly all-knowing god would never expect such a thing. He has not made himself known. There are hundreds of pagan gods and other religions, and we are somehow expected to choose the right one? We also have science, that has done a fantastic job at providing an empirical, observable explanation for everything religion claims to be the work of a supreme being. I am not evil, yet the so-called god of the universe wants to send me to suffer eternally just bc I was rational and didn't believe or chose the wrong religion? Does that make a single shred of sense? No. That also makes him no different than any demon or villain like +Bulos Qoqish said, so a god like that cannot be loving, merciful, or giving of grace. I can't reject something I have no logical reason to believe in. That is what theistic Satanists do, but not normal people or atheists/agnostics. So it should be apparent that this was a manmade idea, it being so flawed and inconsistent and well, autistic! just like every religion, religion being man's first and worst attempt at understanding the universe.
Don't forget the screaming, shouting you're the devil and they love gawd. Yelling you are going to hell. Yeah that kind of thing. Some people are unapproachable. Not just Christians, but Islam, Hindu, Judaism and other less known religions will also act the same way. In a few hundred years, future humans will watch old episodes of deceitful Pastors, Preachers, Priests, Imams, Rabbi's and so forth on their tv at night and bring their popcorn and drinks and 'laugh, laugh, laugh' at the humiliating buttheads for their crazy antics to 'get that money'. Just start with Tele-evangelism.
There is no way in hell the conversation would go like this. The theist would not so easily be convinced. He'd put up a really big fight, then go to hi priest who'd tell him to disassociate with the lady because she is demonic.
The only reason a soul/spirit goes to hell is unbelief not because of sin. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He paid for the forgiveness of sin. His blood is the only acceptable payment for our sinful condition. Faith/trusting in the blood of Christ Jesus is the only way we are saved. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. By Grace through faith are we saved it is not of works lest any man should boast. It's the free gift of God. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@TruePluto The animation style is very similar to that of Family Guy. It's a series well known for its use of non-sequitur cutaway sequences. The man-sized chicken v. Peter brawl is the longest running and most ridiculous among those.
Timothy Wright Except there are no such religions, at least by most general standards of the definition, that 'have a non-zero probability of being true' credulity and ignorance does not a reality make. Sure, it can be argued that there is a *possibility* of any given religion to be true; However, there is also technically a possibility that a cow could literally jump over the moon. It could even technically be argued that there is a 'non-zero probability' of such a thing occurring... IF we're willing to concede enough decimal places, staggeringly so.
@@timothywright82 "It is rational to believe in some religion" No, no it's not. There's not even 1 religion that occupies more than 50 percent of the occupants of this planet. All of christianity takes up like 38% of the world's religions, so it's not a good bet. Odds are with either the Buddhists or muslims, as both of them outweigh christianity. But all of this is pointless because it's silly. There's nothing to say any religion is true, they are all equally lacking in evidence.
Conner why are you comparing the obviously all true Odin the All-Father to the definitely wrong assumption of the christian religion ? Odin will not be happy.
the christian in the cartoon didnt display any logical reasoning skills whatsoever. all he did was agree with everything she said. it was easy to tell that he wasnt such an intelligent person from the beginning, thats why he is so easily swayed in whatever direction.
@Grace Marie you're a dumbass. because what makes you think Christianity is the right religion? There are 100's of denominations in Christianity alone. And there are thousands of religions in the world. It's most likely every religion is wrong and you are just wasting the one and only life you know you have.
Neat cartoon. The reaction of the theist is not realistic. If it were real life, he would have waited about 2.1 seconds into her explanation before he completely ignored everything she had said and switched to some other lame argument without considering why his first one was wrong.
Case-in-point. Thank you for providing one more piece of evidence for what I said about theists dodging the question and side-stepping the points being made.
I've trouble understanding how women can accept how most of the religions put them in a position of submission. To me the obvious misogyny of religious texts is in itself a proof that is has been written by men in a fixed point in time when women had very little social importance. Religion oppresses women and this has always pissed me off since I was a little child.
While I'm no feminist, I can certainly agree that men in the past were misogynistic and dreamed up some misogynist imaginary forces that told them to rape the wives and children of war victims.
Roxane a _"To me the obvious misogyny of religious texts is in itself a proof that is has been written by men in a fixed point in time when women had very little social importance."_ It's not proof of that. You've just forwarded another hypothesis and you seem to have a clear emotional motivation for doing so. Basically, you're arguing the fallacy that "I don't like how religion treats women, therefore God doesn't exist". There's nothing logically contradictory about gods creating women to serve men. There are many good reasons to regard religions as false or unsupported, but that's not one of them. In any case, if you actually believe that a religion is true and that you will go to hell and be tortured for eternity if you don't submit, then obviously you're not going to be objecting to the morality of the god.
Gnomefro Recent archeological researches proved that early human societies didn't have any hierarchy between men and women and first religions were worshiping women because they can create life. Patriarchy came later on and monotheistic religions with a male centered mythology emerged from this culture. It's not "I don't like how religion trats women therefore God doesn't exist" but "Christianity, Judaism and Islam reflect ideologies and culture from the very time they were created therefore they are a late cultural product and not the word of God".
Roxane a And in spite of that (or maybe because of that?) these »misogynistic« religions are enjoying widespread popularity amongst women. 2 out of 3 European converts to Islam (maybe the most woman-submissive religion) are women. If it had been possible to understand women, it would have been done so by now.
Most Americans incorrectly believe that giving to the church is 'charity.' Actually the vast majority of that money just goes to church expenses, including furthering the propaganda of the church. (including the indoctrination of children)'But my church feeds a hundred poor people with soup each week!' Sure, probably soup that was also donated to them for free. Even if they paid for it, it was likely about 20c a can, so feeding a hundred costs them $20... Even with labor costs added in, likely less than $100. Compare that to the thousands of dollars in donations they receive during that period. (no, I'm not talking about the collection plate, I'm talking about the known backroom talks as well as direct solicitations) I dare you to challenge your church to open up their books and see how much they actually spend on the poor and needy.
@@uberhaxonovaPascal’s wager isn’t proof of anything, it literally means nothing because it assumes that the god of Christianity exists in order to work. It’s like me telling you that if you don’t believe I can fly you’ll go to hell, but if you choose to believe it then you’ll be saved. I can’t prove that I can fly and neither can the Christian god be proved to exist.
@@uberhaxonova Believing in something irrational just because it might be true is irrational. Do you believe in the killer unicorns that supposedly target people who don't believe in them while they sleep? I would rather start believing in it because you can never know if I made it up or if the unicorns will actually come for you.
Julie's points were good, but, as a former christian who chats with other Christians, I haven't seen ANY that would allow me to finish my points, much less try to think about them, closest I've gotten was a christian that I met via TH-cam/Google+ who, let's me finish, then does a lot of mental gymnastics to get around what I said (mostly moving the goalposts)
Yep, same with my Cristian mom. She stops and says I misunderstood only to tell the same old Bible stories or show me a video of someone who has converted and changed their life. When I try to point out my criticisms, conversation quickly derails and we move on to something else.
Pascal's Wager is NOT an argument for the existence of any particular god. It is an argument for why you should believe in a certain god. That being said, *IF* there is a god, I believe he would be much more angry and offended if you worshipped the wrong god or a competing god than if you simply allowed logic and reason to cause you to question the existence of god. Ignorance can be forgiven. Betrayal, less so.
+Barry Foster What if the God we know of (in Christianity) as "God" is really "Satan", and the one we know of (in Christianity) as "Satan" is really "God"? We'd better guess right, because if we get it wrong, boy is some deity going to be p*ssed.
+Bulos Qoqish Particularly telling, I don't think Satan ever killed anybody in the Bible, or even directly harmed anybody. All he ever did was point out truths. God, on the other hand, committed mass genocide over and over and over again, and was totally cool with rape and slavery, among other things we consider morally reprehensible. Even for Job, it was God doing all the terrible things to him, not Satan.
+Dewayne C Is that (an adaption of) your definition of god or do you have sufficiently objectively verifiable evidence for that claim? In other words: is that actually subjective or truly objective? I.e. watch your grammar, because you make claims, formulate them as facts but provide no evidence to support them.
I personally love the big flaw in Pascal's Wager. After all, what would happen if it turned out the "true" god was Thor or Zeus of Tlaltecuhtli? (assuming there is one at all). Under the circumstances, if any of those gods (or even all of them) existed, I doubt they'd be too concerned at who follows them. Or if they do, it's probably more like a big popularity contest between them all, with most of the ancient ones being out of the contest for the time being. Also, anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God also doesn't believe in hell. Yeah, not going to be threatened with that.
They'll answer that at least they tried with 1 god and they have more chances than we do (0). BUT, there is a posibility of the existance of a god that doesn't reward belief, but intelectual honesty, or even the posibility of a god that activly punishes belief in him because he's evil. Therefore, according to their logic it's twice as good to not believe in god, since there are more negative outcomes than positive ones.
There are many flaws. Another flaw is that the criteria for passing the test could be anything. Christians say you have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior but what if it's only people who have climbed Mt. Everest or people who have eaten at least 100 scones in their life?
@@JacquesdeJef Actually Hellenism/Greek mythology is really interesting there because only the Olympians are seeking for worshipping. Non-Olympians however don't care if you worship them or not. Hades for example, who is *not* an Olympian god because of his position as the ruler of the underworld, doesn't really demand any offerings at all. He wouldn't even care about you because in his eyes you would just be another soul which he judges and that's it. Similar with his wife Persephone. About Hecate on the other hand I'm not sure. I mean, she is the goddess of sorcery and isn't a b*tch either who caused chaos on humans. Best goddess is however still Hestia. Seriously, the only reason why acient greeks made offerings to her was just because of respect. XD Sure they feared that if they don't mantain their hearthfire and stop the offerings, they would lose their favour on her. But aside that, they mainly did it of respect because of her altruistic and caring personality. This goddess did really *never* something wrong. She was basically like an idole because before any other god got their offerings *all* Greek people gave their offerings to her before they brought offerings to their main god. XD Well and the rest of entities who don't care about what you do would be the abstract entities/incarnations of concepts which are a lot. The only 4 concepts who would actually care about you would just be Thanathos the incarnation of death, Eleos the incarnation of mercy, clemency, compassion and pity, Armor the concept of Love (in Homer's version) and the Furies which are living curses. Like, really literally living curses. Oh and the remaining living Titans wouldn't care about you either. In short: basically 99% of the greek entities don't care about offerings. And as long as you didn't do shit like murdering or torturing someone or something, there is a high chance that you will end up in Elysium anyway which is basically the Heaven in Hellenism/Greek mythology. So the average guy/woman who isn't a completely psychopath or cheating person would win here anyway.
Answering the title cold: For one thing I think a 'god' might spot someone was faking it. And... for another... Being condemned to heaven would be the worst hell I can imagine.
When I think of GoAnimate videos, I think of those crappy Caillou Gets Grounded videos. This is probably the most intelligent GoAnimate video I've ever seen.
"Julie I was thinking about you and wondered if you would like to go for a walk with me then I could stick my pink banana in you maybe I could eat your flower, you could peel and eat my pink banana too. Would you like to Julie? I peeled my pink banana thinking of your flower last night Julie and I sprayed ice cream everywhere, would you like some?" "Yes, Jake that sounds good. But I thought you said you were going to church?" "I am at church with you Julie, you make me feel good, really good Shall we go and worship each other" "I got my coat, lets go"
Pascal's Wager is invalid for the reason that it is infinitely more likely that the stakes of the wager were invented (and enhanced) in order for the wager to work rather than the stakes being actually true. We have no evidence that heaven and hell exist, or that sinners are sent to one and saved souls are sent to the other. However, we have mountains of evidence that people make stuff up for their own gain. It's therefore overwhelmingly likely that the wager is a con job. Imagine if I said: "If you believe what I say, and donate 10% of your (pre-tax) income to me, and subject your intellect to a few principles, and spend your Sunday mornings in a building you built for me (A), you will get a jelly donut. But if you don't (B), you'll get a light rap on your knuckles." Well, you'd say "I'll take the knuckle rap, please." OK, now if (A), you'll get an old Ford Explorer but if (B), you have to work as a dishwasher for a month. Not sure about you, but I'd still take (B). OK - now if (A), you get eternal rewards, but if (B), you get eternal punishment. Now we're talking! It's so obvious this is how it went that the wager should be dismissed out of hand. It's childish.
The problem with this video is that it portrays the Christian in the cartoon as reasonable and rational. If Christians were reasonable and rational, they would not be Christians in the first place.
More than once I have spoken to evangelical Christians in a similar manner,more than once,those I had this kind of discussion with have exploded in anger and actually became physically voilent
Any eternal god without the fear of annihilation, death or impending pain can not know empathy or true love for everyone. No childhood = no personality .
Vyktor Dreygo My god is Odin. Who began, like Sitting Bull in his sun dance, by hanging speared on "the windy tree" 9 days .Shamanic Ordeal.Leaves you still mortal, but with Sight and Power.Liitle Jeeezuss in Jerusalem failed the Test. So they had to steal his body.Also, Prometheus. And Mother Moon. The Earth Mother, Gaia=ecosphere. We are all cells in Her body. Some of our parasitic species, polluters+eco-rapists are cancer cells...
I really like this. I'm an atheist, but I despise atheist arguments that are hateful and disrespectful. This depicted a respectful conversation. Atheists, take note. THIS is the proper way to talk to believers.
Why is she going hiking in a dress and high-heels? And why is he always looking slightly above and behind her? It looks like he's just going through the motions, and really doesn't want her to join him in church.
You wanna know why this videos fucked up? Because the christian is just sitting there, being polite, agreeing with obvious facts. Instead of hopping and screaming and suddenly turning into a Tyrannosaurus Rex, breaking through the roof and rampaging down the street in a fit of violent religious fury.
+Ryan Starrenburg Cause I can't animate? Go Animate let's me spend time working up content instead of trying to create characters and animate them. I know it has it's drawbacks, but the message is what's important.
+Larry Rhodes I'm positively impressed how good the "robot voice" has become. Haven't really seen any newer development since I bought my current navigation device. It has come far in a handful of years. Do you directly feed your script into the program and coordinate it with the cartoon figures / camera angles?
Yes, just select which character is supposed to be talking and type or paste your text into their talk-bubble during the creation process. It's actually pretty easy. Don't have much control over camera angle though, just some pan/zoom effects.
It took me a while to find this video again. It is the best video on pascal's wager and I'll be saving it this time. It deserves a lot more views and likes.
Thanks Kuro. I have this in written form on my blog if you'd like that.. You can find it here. www.digitalfreethought.com/blog/2017/08/07/why-pascals-wager-is-invalid/
What if your god isn't real and the real god doesn't let you in his paradise as you prayed to the wrong god but he lets atheists in as they were at least neutral?
Thanks for posting the video Larry. Unfortunately the events in the video could never occur in real life. The failure is in presupposing that you can find even one Christian who will listen to, understand, and actually consider the arguments against Pascal's Wager. What would really happen is either A) the Christian gets angry, states you are going to Hell, and goes off in a huff, or B) The Christian puts his fingers in his ears, and runs away screaming "God is Great!"
I can't imagine getting religious people to listen to so much logic so pleasantly, and Pascal's Wager collapses with the argument of other faiths immediately, so no need to waste time with any of the other arguments in a real debate on the wager, but it was all very good information to consider for oneself and for use in other religious debates for sure. Very thorough. Good job. By the way, long before I ever heard of Pascal's Wager, I thought that using such an argument proved that Christianity was immoral. I had always been taught that doing something merely to gain rewards or avoid punishments was immoral, so Christianity proved itself to be immoral for this and so many other reasons long ago, and this is the primary reason why I never respected it, and the only thing that shocks me is that so many other people either don't care or don't even see its obvious hypocritical nature, thus proving that they are either happy to be immoral or willing to be fooled, both of which are bad in my opinion already.
Hello...it....is....me...in....monotone....creep-y....voice. Hi...I...am...also...in...monotone...creep-y...voice. Honestly, this computer voice ruins everything. Why people use it, I'd rather hear a real person's voice no matter how bad it sounds. This just took the life out of the video. So many people use that creepy voice, ick. Like conspiracy videos.
Why can't i reply to delawarecop Anyways you already failed. Even if you were right, which you are not (what is the point of a religion unless your claim is right?), all it takes is one other religion to make that claim for pascals wager a fail. Second, forget other religions, let's just look at the 41,000 denominations of Christianity where many believe the other 40,999 groups are going to hell with all the non-believers. How do you deal with that? Sometimes I wonder if there must be a god but he is some asshole who loves to trick people into believing bullshit so they waste what little life they were lucky enough to be born with. Who cares if you have no purpose after death, enjoy what you have now and if you are a morally just person and god exists and is a good being, he isn't going to torture anyone, especially not for an eternity. Now if its the god I think it might be then we should all be worried, you even more then me.
D.J.P.K. I dont argue, thats your job. I'm simply setting the record straight by telling people the facts. Pascals wager is entirely logical from the atheistic perspective, because whats wrong with believing something that you cannot prove to be a scientific fact - atheists do it every day when they talk about darwinian evolution:) So it shouldn;t be hard to believe in God and follow His Commandments. Reality is, that atheists dont like to be tied to a moral code that is established by the Creator, they want to make their own morals so that they can do whatever they think is right in accordance with their own fascist presuppositional world view.
I once heard a Humanist preacher elegantly skewer Pscal's Wager. She said What if you get to the Pearly Gates, and instead of finding St Peter asking if you've been good, you meet THARGROD the Party Demon, and he asks you "DID YOU HAVE A GOOD TIME?!?!"
Crom is my god. If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!
you're too young to know what big people do in the woods little jameses. now run allong and go play with your matchbox cars and leave my study *smokes pipe*
Stop. You're making Atheists look bad. We're supposed to be intelligent, compassionate, and independently moral. You sound like an angry teenager. Please find a role model. Maybe Stephen Fry.
wow... if only these conversations went THAT smoothly and most religious people were that open to rethinking deeply held beliefs. Very concise and articulate. nice work!
I agree with what the lady is saying. Absolutely agree with it, up until she says that the soul isn't real. I was brought up in a very religious home. I was taught that sinners go to hell and the saved go to heaven. Shit, I was terrified of not being able to live a complete life because I believed that Jesus could burst through the clouds at any minute and just end it all. And I was 12 at the time. Can you imagine a 12 year old dreading that they wouldn't be able to live a full, complete life all because he thought an all powerful deity could take it away in an instant? That being said, even though I no longer believe in an all powerful god, I still hold a belief that there is something inside of us that is eternal. I don't know, I may be wrong. I don't know for certain that there is an afterlife. What I do know without a doubt, though, is that our universe is so vast that we may never even come close to seeing all of it's facets. The fact is that in every major scientific revelation, humans believed that they were one step closer to understanding the absolute truths of the universe when actually it's the contrary. Humans may have learned more about nature and the world they live in, but each time we revealed a new piece of the puzzle thinking that we were that much closer fitting all of the pieces together, in reality the puzzle only grew bigger and more complicated.
Nicely done. Also very perceptive. I particularly liked how you went further than just explaining how Pascal's Wager fails, in that you explain how cults like this, and that's exactly what Christianity is, use fear and horror stories to control their sheep.
so Pascal's wager... Do you want to enjoy your life or do you spent your life worshipping a god, wich has no evidence for its existence... With other words do you want 1000$ now or a 1 to 3000 chance to get 1000000$ in the future? But I can not tell you for sure when or if you get the 1000000$, also I can provide no evidence that the 1000000$ even exist.
frank dunleavy "Occam's Razor - a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct" Because my experience tells me it's not often the simplest answer.
wmpratt2010 Well, it's not a law or anything, it's just advice. It's simply a "principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." But it does no guarantee correctness. It mostly just keeps you from going off in 16 different, complicated directions. ie. if a cookie is missing and a child is present, don't go looking for invisible cookie demons. :)
Larry Rhodes Actually I always viewed the use of Pascal's Wager as less of a reason to believe in a god and more of an illustration of logical fallacies. How people arrive at their various beliefs (including non-religious beliefs) is never a straight line. I've heard atheists use Occam's Razor to justify no god (even though a god created universe is certainly less complex than how we're told it came to be by science). I never heard of an invisible cookie demon but I have seen a cookie monster.
wmpratt2010 How is a God created universe less complex than what we are told by scientists? Also, what scientist has told you they have the definitive answer to how the universe began?
NerdLogic969 "Also, what scientist has told you they have the definitive answer to how the universe began?" Scientists always sell everything as fact (rather it is or not). So yea right now the Big Bang is it. Even thought any evidence for it is circumstantial at best.
I’ve watch my fair share of goanimate and I can confirm that these are in fact text to speech voices, the creator probably used them because they are easily accessible on goanimate
That guy is trying to get into her pants SOOOOOO hard. "Julie, baby, I really need you to accept the Lord, so we can start getting to know each other better in a biblical sense..."
This is a big flaw with this video. Any self respecting Christian man would not purposely date an attractive Atheist woman, while hoping that she becomes a Christian so that he looks less shallow for selecting only a natural, pretty woman to get into a relationship with. In other words, Christian men should not date women that they know are going to constantly disagree with them on religious issues. My brother followed the Word of God prior to meeting, falling in love with, and marrying his non-Christian wife. After being married to her for 6 years, and refusing to question her over her non-religious stance, he became an Atheist.
Grafight23 Just because my brother says with his mouth that he is happier for not accepting that God is real does not mean his mentality holds the same worth. And, who are you to say that following God's Word has not done me any good? You don't know what my life is like to make that judgment.
Rawk4Life I'm going by your post. You say "no self respecting christian would date an atheist woman..." etc., etc. but then you reveal that your brother did exactly that. You seem bitter, disappointed and intolerant toward your brother. Maybe you secretly wish you could be free like him, and that makes you feel guilty. But wait: What if there is no god? Aren't you wasting your life worshipping a fictional character? If God is real, why does he need priests and prophets to pass on his will to us? Why doesn't he tells us directly? I'll tell you why: Because prophets, priests, oracles, shamans and medicine men throughout history have invented gods and god stories to stay in business.
Grafight23 First off, I am not bitter and intolerant towards my brother because I am not jamming down his throat that he'll burn in hell forever. When someone claims to be of God, and then down the road turns to Atheism, you have to wonder if they were a Christian to begin with. Secondly, what do you mean wishing that I was free like him? He still has to obey the laws set in motion by our government regardless of whether or not he follows a particular religion. I have never felt more free in my life since the day I gave my life to Christ because without Him I would be a worry wort and manic depressive each time something went wrong. Third, the Bible makes it clear that if people don't listen to God's commands and instruction from His servants and children, then they aren't going to change their minds if the Lord Himself stood in front of them and spoke the same words. Remember when your parents would tell you as a little child not to place your hand on the stove burner when it was turned on because you'd burn yourself? Then, if you ignored their advice and did it anyway you'd end up in pain and then tell yourself "Now I wish I had listened to them?" The same goes with the principles in God's Word. Lastly, do you have proof that prophets, priests, oracles, shamans, and medicine men make up god stories just to stay in business, or are you saying that just as an excuse not to believe that there really may be a God amongst our universe? It's a known fact that people who CHOOSE not to believe in something will come up with any excuse to claim that it was never there to begin with, and then use the "I don't need proof if it doesn't exist" scapegoat.
Rawk4Life Glad to hear you're nice to your brother. I withdraw my previous comment. Now, I think it's very possible that your brother was a true and faithful christian, because I was one too. It's not easy I tell you. I WISH, there was a wonderful parental figure waiting for us after we die. I wish I could believe that my soul will live on for eternity. I wish I knew that despite all the evil in the world, justice will be served in the end. But I don't anymore, and I can't pretend that I do. Second point: The laws of the government don't intrude into my thoughts. Religion does. The pastor and the bible don't only tell you what to do, but also what to think. Surrendering your mind is the ultimate servitude. Third: I don't know where the bible says that, but I'm sure that if Jesus would appear out of nothing in front of me, I would change my mind right now. I would trust him much more than I trust Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart or the Watchtower Society. Fourth: Sure they may be some creator in the universe, but everything I experience tells me that it's far more likely that there isn't. And if there is, its certainly not the god described in the bible or any other religious text or mythology. All those gods are too human upon careful examination.
This interaction is almost as unbelievable as belief in God. Given the same arguments I have never had such a balanced and open minded religious person interact with me like that. I guess there is still hope that one day those who do believe will grow out of their superstition and the human race can move onto a more enlightened future.
on the lol sidenote - find me IRL so rational women that could hold a logical argument for so long. On the real note: ppl believe in religions - not god. So if you take religions out of the equation - pascals wager works for me.
But how do you know that is god? Because i have a conscience and i dont know if it came from a god or not, i assume it did not, because there is nothing that tells me it is.
Just because I have no other better explanation to choose from I say it's some invisible spaghetty monster that I don't have any other way to identify it with except for that feeling of right and wrong. And it's not mind. Because mind is the "opposition" of that feeling, that tries to get away with not doing what conscience tells it to do.
Maksims Ivanovs just because you don't have a better explanation doesn't mean it's God. To use your logic, I can't explain how my car works, that doesn't mean it's God too...
Six people gave a thumbs up to this comment. I wonder, from any of them, in what regard do you mean that it presumes to speak for all? She said she was an atheist, and that she had a particular belief rather than a simple lack of belief. I'll grant that as stated, it leaves itself wide open to misinterpretation. However, I've made really strong and cogent arguments which were in no way ambiguous, but which were "misunderstood" nonetheless by ardent theists desperate to prove me wrong about something, simply for not agreeing with them. Several atheists and agnostics and even some theists chimed in to attempt to correct the misinformation spewed forth by my interlocutor in those instances, and yet all were dismissed as equally dishonest. It has happened on several occasions, especially in the comment section of youtube videos such as this one (though not in this particular one... had to clarify because as stated it could have been confusing).
***** What the Hell are you talking about? Are you confusing me with Donovan Thompson ? I did not assume anyone was speaking for me. Why would I? I know my own mind, and therefore I know whether or not anyone is representing my personal views on any given topic.
The one-sided bias in this video does not surprise me as it's nothing but Atheist propaganda used to try and paint the Christian in this video as an idiot who doesn't know anything about his beliefs. It's baloney to portray him in that way.
Funny thing, a study in the stats shows on average Atheist know more about and not just christianity but almost all of them. Now I don't have the numbers or the names and this is where I will fail cause you will need to look it up your self. I know god tells you not to do that but why most Atheist are Atheist is because we look into things. The world is beautiful and we can find out anything about it. Or just accept god did it.
24414330 You just contradicted yourself. You just painted Christians as morons by assuming that what they believe is nonsensical and supernatural idiocy. Otherwise, you could have just said something along the lines of "Christians believe in what cannot be proven by science." But of course, you took the immature, degradation route.
Rawk4Life No, you prove exactly my point. Firstly, you used the word morons not me. Secondly, I do not need scientific proof that it doesn't rain bread, that burning bushes cannot talk, that eating a bread wafer and drinking wine turns into the body of superman, that the Earth is flat, that there are seven headed dragons and that snakes and donkeys can talk. So if you have the scientific evidence that these things are true and can happen, then come up with the evidence, you will win a Nobel prize. Until then, these superstitious beliefs remain idiotic and puerile.
24414330 So what if I used the word morons? Are you trying to play dumb and claim you didn't try to say that what Christians believe in is of a ridiculous or idiotic nature? By the way, moron is a synonym for idiot, which you should know if you passed grade school. Secondly, if you don't need scientific evidence to support a talking, burning bush, that a donkey talked to Balaam, or the shape of Earth being flat (which is not supported by the Bible despite accusations), then you would need faith in order to believe it. So, you're basically saying that you'd rather blindly believe something that you don't know is true, than to put faith in what science cannot prove as being true. There's no "until then," and if you can't back up the accusation that the Christian belief system is nothing but superstitions, then there's no way that statement by itself can be accurate either. I will stand by the following statement until I die. If God is not real, and the Bible is a book of lies, then why debate it to death and exhaust yourself trying to denounce what wasn't real to begin with? If the notion of no God was an absolute, everyone would be in full agreement with each other about it.
There's a whole lot wrong with this. The athiest assumes that they know all religions but they don't. They give general accusations that aren't factual. First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption. RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis. RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't. RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?. Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally. RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous. RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one. RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing. Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it. RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right? For the sake of argument I'll ignore the proof of spirit, afterlife stuff. I'll also agree with the fact that believing in God can be about the fear of going to hell. But there's tons of good that comes along with it. So I just gave 8 reasons why the explanation in this video why pascals wager is wrong is wrong.
"First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption." The point is Pascal's Wager presents it as two options (and one of them specifically being Christianity) with 50/50 probability, meaning only four possible outcomes. The fact that those are not the only options is what is being explained. "RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis. " Each sect can claim vastly different criteria to get into heaven, which does not fit into Pascal's 50/50 chance. Some say simple belief is all that is needed, but many others insist you must pass a few more tests like live a certain way or donate this % of your income. "RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't." People may change their belief based on new knowledge, that is different than "choosing a belief" (pretending to believe). "RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?. Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally. " Exactly. You can not fool a god by pretending to believe because of Pascal's Wager. "RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous. " Further proving the point that Pascal did not take anything into account for his 50/50 wager. Because if you put in just a few of the actual variables the probability drops down to a fraction of a percent. "RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one." No comment. "RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing. Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it." I know it is not all churches, but too many do dubious things to get donations. "RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right?" If you were to apply Pascal's Wager then there would be a 50/50 chance that blowing yourself up gets you an express VIP pass to heaven.
MrNateSPF First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption." > The point is Pascal's Wager presents it as two options (and one of them specifically being Christianity) with 50/50 probability, meaning only four possible outcomes. The fact that those are not the only options is what is being explained. >> There are three major world religions and all have common roots. By far the most prevalent faith worldwide is Christianity with billions of followers. Full disclosure: I am a believing Christian. To me, the (valid) wager is: Should one ask spiritual questions or not? Should one reach out to God and ask if He is real or not? That's it. Should you try to reach out to Christ and do so sincerely in a way that follows His teachings? In trying (and potentially failing) you lose NOTHING and it is over in minutes. In NOT trying you could potentially lose, well, more than can be put into words. Is it really worth the gamble to not at least try? Ask yourself why, WHY you will not perform this simple act? Be honest with yourself. Is it not REALLY because you are worried about what could happen? Do you honestly believe billions of people are simply dim-witted, deluded or that gullible? Are you not even the slightest bit curious? I say YOU ARE or you would not be reading this thread. The psych courses I have taken would lead me to believe Larry actually wants someone to convince him he is wrong as well. Anyone who says they KNOW there is no God is just kidding and discrediting themselves. You cannot logically prove a negative but I will be closing that can of worms back up now. "RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis. " >Each sect can claim vastly different criteria to get into heaven, which does not fit into Pascal's 50/50 chance. Some say simple belief is all that is needed, but many others insist you must pass a few more tests like live a certain way or donate this % of your income. >> If a church is telling you you MUST contribute a certain percentage of your income to "get into Heaven" and you do not believe this is reasonable (I would not) I as a Christian, will be the first to tell you to look for another church. The thing that makes a Christian a Christian is believing the contents of the Nicene Creed and having a relationship with Christ. Anything else is people/groups following their hearts. Find a church that feels like home is the best advice I have been given. The differences from one "sect" to another are all of secondary importance. It is stated repeatedly in this thread a "God would know if one was faking their belief", yes He would! He would also know if you were sincerely trying to do what you felt was right! I believe in a loving God who knows we are going to grow and learn and make mistakes and who will forgive us along the way. What is of primary importance is the connection. "RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't." > People may change their belief based on new knowledge, that is different than "choosing a belief" (pretending to believe). >> Exactly, like new knowledge gained through pursuing a spiritual life. One thing I learned while becoming a Christian is the concept that everyone is created with a God-shaped vacuum. We are created to be spiritual beings (look into Carl Jung). Some people fill this void with the pursuit of material things, the pursuit of pleasure/sex or even keeping busy promoting concepts like Atheism. None of things things truly satisfy though, the more you pour them in, the less it helps. Their lives of quiet desperation persist. I did not know true peace until I became a Christian. It's called "the peace that passes all understanding" and I am here to tell you it is real. "RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally. " > Exactly. You can not fool a god by pretending to believe because of Pascal's Wager. >> Again I don't think the idea is to suddenly decide or pretend to believe, that would be pointless, not to mention unsustainable if you are a sincere and honest person. "RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous. " > Further proving the point that Pascal did not take anything into account for his 50/50 wager. Because if you put in just a few of the actual variables the probability drops down to a fraction of a percent. >> Actual variables? This is discussed above. You seem to be obsessed with a "sure thing" on paper, up front. You are trying to reduce this to an equation of some sort. All I can tell you is once you connect with Christ you will know where you stand spiritually, You will know you have a "sure thing". You won't be worried about legalities or if you are on the right path or in the correct group. It is a personal 1:1 relationship and what really matters. "RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one." > No comment. >> Larry is simply going to any length to demonize. I think any rational person would know the difference between a sincere church and say a cult. "RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing. Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it." > I know it is not all churches, but too many do dubious things to get donations. >> There are unscrupulous people in ALL walks of life. I would not accept this as a reason to not explore a spiritual life any more than I would accept deciding to never vote because there are corrupt politicians. I also think your are greatly exaggerating the issue for obvious reasons. "RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right?" > If you were to apply Pascal's Wager then there would be a 50/50 chance that blowing yourself up get's you a VIP pas ito heaven. >> Sorry but this is just utter nonsense and a self-serving oversimplification. No legitimate Muslim would condone such acts.
Hello *****, you seem a little confused there so let's see if we can clear this up for you. We are commenting on a video on TH-cam. This video is about Pascal's Wager and all of my comments are within the context of the video. Most of your replies were completely irrelevant to the points I made and I would rather not bounce from subject to subject, as not to divert from the topic at hand. Pascal posited that there are only two options; the god he believes in exists or no god exists. Then he supposed that the odds between one or the other were the same as flipping a coin. You said it is "just utter nonsense and a self-serving oversimplification" to put 50/50 odds on a religious view that you do not already believe, and I hope you can see that Pascal's Wager is the exact same thing only for a religious view you do believe.
MrNateSPF I'm sorry but I see no cause for your attempt at condescension. If you took offence at "nonsense" I admit that was rude, I just found what your were saying, putting Terrorists in the same camp with people following a credible faith, as pretty insulting. If you are just going to take everything to ridiculous lengths, the conversation becomes pointless. As for sticking to the talking points, I responded to each one and tried to expand on the discussion and add additional context. If this breaks some form of TH-cam etiquette I'm not aware of... so be it.
Everybody is going to somebody else's hell. The time to worry about it is when they prove that heaven, hell and souls are real. Until, don't sweat it and enjoy your life.
"Laugh now, pay later" is a lazy comment from a lazy mind that doesn't want to do the actual work of thinking. It's easier for a weak-minded person to lazily subscribe to the notion that their opponents will "burn in hell" for not believing the same things they believe. The casual gloating inherent in this mindset -- the smug satisfaction they feel knowing that those who disagree with their faith will be immolated -- shows the true nature of their hearts.
Of course its a valid argument, except atheists dont like to be reminded of it:) There is only one God and Creator of all. Not all religions claim to be right at all, so this whole video is based on false assumptions - pretty typical of atheists though:)
"Not all religions claim to be right at all" So, only the ones that claim to be right, are right. Is that your point? So you admit that there are hundreds of correct religions besides Christianity?
Well lets say that not all religions clame to be right, but the once that do are right so for one religion you would be , as stated by your argument , aloud to go to heaven, but by a other one not, so your soul is still doomed , as that religion is right to, and by yet an other one you are reincarnated for example what is gonna happen with you then if that one is right to, is your soul gone be split into a thousand parts and judged by every "right" religions rules , that be just silly . I personally don't believe in anything, I'll see when I die if there is something, but i am not gonna base my whole live on a believe, I base my life on what I can see and feel and smell etc, things that are proven to be real, and when I die , and there is nothing there, then I lived a full life .
delawarecop I was just carrying your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. Further, it IS stupid to think that a religion is right if it says it's right. I could start a new religion tomorrow (like Joe Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard did) and in the religious text, I could say this religion is right. Would that make it right? That is just dumb. Also, about the prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled by Jesus; you have to remember that the people who wrote the New Testament HAD the old testament at hand. They could write that Jesus fulfilled any of the prophecies they choose simply by writing that into the NT texts.
"How much time and energy do you sacrifice-?" Same point as before. That time and energy forces you to care, to form connections with people, to do things, to get outside of your comfort zone. If left to my own devices, I'm liable to spend all my free time sitting on the couch and relaxing.
People are not that logical. She drops him and sails off to the Carribean. His pastor gets a revelation, and he spends his last days in a cave waiting for the second coming. There love was not to be.
The pascals wager doesnt state that there is no drawbacks to believing. It says that if you believe, and god is real the loss is finite and the gain is infinite
There were some very good points to this. The idea that, if God doesn't exist, you haven't lost anything by believing in Him, is shown to be untrue and the specific points about what you actually will have lost are well put. I discovered that same basic idea myself, but what is lost is much deeper than just money lost in tithing, and hours lost in conversation with fellow Christers. What you actually lose if you believe in God and He doesn't exist, is the Truth. Because you are believing what turns out to be a lie. Now while I don't go the route of atheism, there are things deep within us that atheism and materialism will never be able to satisfy. But this doesn't mean I go after the path of Christianity either.
Hi Volkh Veronovich. I agree with what you say, but not that "time spent talking to Christians is wasted". Where there is no communication, there is no hope of change. I always bring up the subject of honesty, a moral ethic that affects everyone and everything now and forever, but doesn't depend on God existing. (Although I'm fairly sure he or she does). The last Book of the Bible mentions the importance of honesty 3 times in the last two chapters. (Rev 21:08) (Rev 21:27), & (Rev 22:15) all say how "no liars get to heaven". Believing in Jesus or the tall stories about him isn't mentioned, so my guess is that the Christianity we know was originally a philosophy which the Romans took over to further their own slavery based empire. An offshoot of Stoicism possibly. Cheers, P.R.
I didn't say you would blow you're self up, I said it was a possiblility, and there are people who do just that pretty much every day. And usually exercising you're mind does improve it, but if the exercise that you're performing is to exercise Faith, in supernatural things, that's self-defeating. You're just setting you're brain up to believe things on no evidence, and that makes you prey to those who want to take advantage of your gullibility.
No, they really aren't received that well. I have been doing a Digital Freethought Radio Hour podcast for the last 6 years though. You can find them here: th-cam.com/video/u4D9Ow9nOtU/w-d-xo.html
I had not even heard of Pascal’s wager until a few months ago but I came up with the same idea in middle school or so figuring faith is almost like a insurance policy. It wasn’t until a few years ago that I started to reevaluate that idea and decided if this was going to be my life then I needed to really believe and strive for a relationship with god and try to understand him only when I started looking I started finding problems I took a break for a couple years and then a few months ago began trying to really understand the Bible again and came across some atheist arguments only instead of rejecting them like I had many times before I started to find myself actually agreeing with them. I still consider myself Christian for the time being but my doubts have grown exponentially over the last few months.
Yeah, It is attractive in it's simplicity. That's probably why it's so popular with believers of all religions. You have to actually think about it to determine the flaws.. Like most beliefs.
The Pascals wager only makes sense if spending time worshipping a god as a theist doesnt cost you anything - including time. That is not the case as it most CERTAINLY do. The pascals wager only makes sense if you take one god into account in a way that either god exist - the god we are talking about, or he doesnt. That is not the case as you have no way of demonstrating that the god you do the wager about is the only option. Now if we expand the wager to include every single god that mankind have worshipped. Then the odds of you worshipping the right god is suddenly ridiculously low. And ofcourse god could be one that nobody have thought of which essentially expands the odds to be aproaching infinitly small. The theist is just one more than that.
I like the simple layout of logical arguments in this video. And the counter to Pascal's Wager is particularly valid. Though i may disagree with one or two points here and there.
Just a few things: 1. There is actually a very coherent (and biblically sound) argument that some Christians put forth to show that Hell does not exist - it isn't biblical. micahredding.com/blog/series/there-no-hell 2. Most of us (theists and atheists alike) believe in a few things we cannot observe or prove. My favorite is the belief in an objective morality, the existence of right and wrong itself. We have no evidence that there is truly a such thing as right and wrong, yet most of us very clearly believe in it. So I don't think we should criticize others just for believing in something with no evidence. 3. I think one *can* make themselves believe in something supernatural (outside of nature), though it may take a while. The question about a million dollars isn't a good analogy because a million dollars can be confirmed or disconfirmed; that's not the case with a god. 4. Christians have actually answered the question about "What if you never hear about Christianity?" with the contention that the bible only says those who *reject* the religion don't make it to heaven. 5. I don't think there's much to lose *either way*. Even tithing isn't really a *loss*; I mean, you're really just paying to keep the event (something you obviously enjoy/appreciate on some level) going. And no, you don't have to let anyone or anything *control* you, to be religious. Many Christians, for example, don't believe in biblical inerrancy. I'd even go so far as to say I'm sure religion *helps* some people; who are we to say what's worth whose time? And finally, 6. Let's keep in mind that there are tons of Christians who don't go by any form of argumentation including Pascal's Wager but by what they're convinced is an experience of god in their lives. Many Christians are former atheists who claim to have experienced god in some way, so none of this would shake their faith. But I agree with the overall point, about Pascal's Wager.
Pascal was probably joking when he came up with his wager, and I often think that, if there is a god, he must have created the world as a joke. With humor we demonstrate how we are indeed created in the image of God.
You can really feel the emotion in their voices... I cried twice.
Yes computer voices do that not lol
"Okay!" vs. "Okay."
Those were the only inflections I picked up on lol.
For robots they looked very human although they did not sound human.
I feel you buddy... One of the most touching videos here in youtube.
Me too 😭😭😭😭😭
knock knock
--"Who is it?"
-"It's me, Jesus. Let me in."
--"Why do you want in?"
-"I want to save you."...
--"Save me from what?"
-"From what I'll do to you if you don't let me in.
+Barry Foster from what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in
+Barry Foster
knock knock
-- "It's me. I'm either Jesus, or I'm the Devil."
-- "Well, I'm not going to let you in if you're the Devil, so say something that will prove to me which one you are. That is, something that the Devil would say but Jesus never would."
-- "OK then... if you don't let me in, I'll torture you for all eternity."
(long silence, door remains shut)
-- "Why aren't you opening the door?"
-- "I asked you to tell me something that only the Devil would say."
+John Oakley
(1.) You cannot be "condemned" by an imaginary being who does not exist. Are you afraid of being "condemned" by leprechauns and unicorns, for not believing in them?
(2.) Let me humour you for a moment and assume that a supernatural, unseen being named "Jesus" actually DOES exist, and if you don't "open the door" for him (e.g., agree to everything and anything that he demands of you), he both can and will "condemn" you to an eternity of fiendish torture in Hell? In that case (viz. my earlier parody of Barry Foster's amusing little "knock knock" joke), how would you be able to distinguish Jesus from the Devil, or any number of other malign supernatural beings, who also threaten you with cruel abuse, leading up to but not terminating with death, for slights real or imagined? In this example, Jesus is doing EXACTLY what you would expect an evil deity to do -- that is, "threaten you with outcomes that no responsible or 'good' (in a sense of the word 'good' that is intelligible to people of average intelligence) deity, possibly would". So you have no way whatsoever to distinguish between Jesus and the Devil; they both want to torture and murder you; the only difference is the window-dressing.
(3.) What if an angel of Allah, or of Buddha, or of Crom, Set, Cthulhu, Baal, the Wizard of Oz or some other malign deity, comes and knocks on your door, threatening you with eternal damnation unless you exclusively believe in it (and / or its patron deity)? You can't please both "God" and "Baal", after all. Since both of them threatens you with torture and death... what's a good theist to do?
Unless, of course, you recognize all the above as just rot that the priesthoods are fobbing off on you, so they can go around torturing, murdering, raping, oppressing and plundering, as they have consistently done down through the ages... because people are too stupid to realize that the whole puppet show is being run by that man behind the curtain.
***** "you are simply rejecting the grace and mercy of God"
How can a god expect a rational, intelligent human to believe in something he has no rational evidence for? If a god 'gave' us the five senses, the only way we are able to make sense of our environment, then why aren't we able to see or hear him or understand him at all through those senses? A truly all-knowing god would never expect such a thing. He has not made himself known. There are hundreds of pagan gods and other religions, and we are somehow expected to choose the right one? We also have science, that has done a fantastic job at providing an empirical, observable explanation for everything religion claims to be the work of a supreme being. I am not evil, yet the so-called god of the universe wants to send me to suffer eternally just bc I was rational and didn't believe or chose the wrong religion? Does that make a single shred of sense? No. That also makes him no different than any demon or villain like +Bulos Qoqish said, so a god like that cannot be loving, merciful, or giving of grace. I can't reject something I have no logical reason to believe in. That is what theistic Satanists do, but not normal people or atheists/agnostics.
So it should be apparent that this was a manmade idea, it being so flawed and inconsistent and well, autistic! just like every religion, religion being man's first and worst attempt at understanding the universe.
***** That wasn't the point and I was making a generalization in saying that. Why don't you answer the actual question?
Those chairs are extremely oversized.
+Ando Green maybe they are just tiny people
+Ando Green Must be children lol
That was your take away?
@@willis2920 My take away was that guy is NOT getting laid.
@@marccolten9801 Neither did Jesus. He was a virgin, or so the story goes. Much like his mom.
this is the most patient and open minded Christian I've ever heard of. normally they interrupt and get hilariously angry
Apparently you're not addressing them in a calm, robotic voice. ;-)
Don't forget the screaming, shouting you're the devil and they love gawd. Yelling you are going to hell. Yeah that kind of thing. Some people are unapproachable. Not just Christians, but Islam, Hindu, Judaism and other less known religions will also act the same way.
In a few hundred years, future humans will watch old episodes of deceitful Pastors, Preachers, Priests, Imams, Rabbi's and so forth on their tv at night and bring their popcorn and drinks and 'laugh, laugh, laugh' at the humiliating buttheads for their crazy antics to 'get that money'. Just start with Tele-evangelism.
sorry that not all religious people are the ones you hear about on r/atheism
@@throatwobblermangrove8510 OK, that earned a genuine LOL
@@jvlian2020 yeah, the robotic lifeless nonthinking ones are fine.
There is no way in hell the conversation would go like this. The theist would not so easily be convinced. He'd put up a really big fight, then go to hi priest who'd tell him to disassociate with the lady because she is demonic.
The conversation is going like this because he's hoping to score with her later
@@berserkley yup.
Typically, the "theist" would point out the ways in which pascal's wager is flawed.
The only reason a soul/spirit goes to hell is unbelief not because of sin. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He paid for the forgiveness of sin. His blood is the only acceptable payment for our sinful condition. Faith/trusting in the blood of Christ Jesus is the only way we are saved. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. By Grace through faith are we saved it is not of works lest any man should boast. It's the free gift of God. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@paulgemme6056 indoctrination is a hell of drug.
I kept expecting Peter Griffin to pop into the frame fighting a giant chicken-man or something.
Why
@@TruePluto The animation style is very similar to that of Family Guy. It's a series well known for its use of non-sequitur cutaway sequences. The man-sized chicken v. Peter brawl is the longest running and most ridiculous among those.
god is as real as the voices in the video
proof?
+yaroslav pakhomenko
depends on what proof you are looking for.
Axer Diaz phisical avidens
yaroslav pakhomenko
are you telling me that you can't see that the voice are fake robot generated voice?
The immoral atheist sorry i whent all retarted on that one i thoght you meant god is real
The conversation of the android atheist and the android christian.
Pascal's Wager is more like a threat than an argument
Typical Theist: Aren't you worried that God will send you to Hell?
Me: Aren't you worried that Odin the All-Father won't let you into Valhalla?
Timothy Wright Except there are no such religions, at least by most general standards of the definition, that 'have a non-zero probability of being true' credulity and ignorance does not a reality make. Sure, it can be argued that there is a *possibility* of any given religion to be true; However, there is also technically a possibility that a cow could literally jump over the moon. It could even technically be argued that there is a 'non-zero probability' of such a thing occurring... IF we're willing to concede enough decimal places, staggeringly so.
Without Sieglinde, I want no part of Valhalla.
@@timothywright82 "It is rational to believe in some religion" No, no it's not. There's not even 1 religion that occupies more than 50 percent of the occupants of this planet. All of christianity takes up like 38% of the world's religions, so it's not a good bet. Odds are with either the Buddhists or muslims, as both of them outweigh christianity. But all of this is pointless because it's silly. There's nothing to say any religion is true, they are all equally lacking in evidence.
Conner why are you comparing the obviously all true Odin the All-Father to the definitely wrong assumption of the christian religion ? Odin will not be happy.
Nah because Odin was a myth. Jesus was not.
if christians were really that reasonable and open to logic as the christian in the cartoon, christianity would've died out generations ago
the christian in the cartoon didnt display any logical reasoning skills whatsoever. all he did was agree with everything she said. it was easy to tell that he wasnt such an intelligent person from the beginning, thats why he is so easily swayed in whatever direction.
@Grace Marie you're a dumbass. because what makes you think Christianity is the right religion? There are 100's of denominations in Christianity alone. And there are thousands of religions in the world. It's most likely every religion is wrong and you are just wasting the one and only life you know you have.
@@StaticBlaster Yup. If there was any truth in religion there would only be one.
some are but they don't stay long as christian.
true
Neat cartoon. The reaction of the theist is not realistic. If it were real life, he would have waited about 2.1 seconds into her explanation before he completely ignored everything she had said and switched to some other lame argument without considering why his first one was wrong.
Every one I have conversed with on here has...
***** Watch this:
Can you provide some actual evidence for god's existence?
Case-in-point. Thank you for providing one more piece of evidence for what I said about theists dodging the question and side-stepping the points being made.
Thanks for letting us know you are a troll...
That's because their entire belief system is based on faith. Faith can only be argued emotionally and circularly.
I've trouble understanding how women can accept how most of the religions put them in a position of submission. To me the obvious misogyny of religious texts is in itself a proof that is has been written by men in a fixed point in time when women had very little social importance. Religion oppresses women and this has always pissed me off since I was a little child.
While I'm no feminist, I can certainly agree that men in the past were misogynistic and dreamed up some misogynist imaginary forces that told them to rape the wives and children of war victims.
Roxane a
_"To me the obvious misogyny of religious texts is in itself a proof that is has been written by men in a fixed point in time when women had very little social importance."_
It's not proof of that. You've just forwarded another hypothesis and you seem to have a clear emotional motivation for doing so. Basically, you're arguing the fallacy that "I don't like how religion treats women, therefore God doesn't exist". There's nothing logically contradictory about gods creating women to serve men.
There are many good reasons to regard religions as false or unsupported, but that's not one of them.
In any case, if you actually believe that a religion is true and that you will go to hell and be tortured for eternity if you don't submit, then obviously you're not going to be objecting to the morality of the god.
Gnomefro Recent archeological researches proved that early human societies didn't have any hierarchy between men and women and first religions were worshiping women because they can create life. Patriarchy came later on and monotheistic religions with a male centered mythology emerged from this culture. It's not "I don't like how religion trats women therefore God doesn't exist" but "Christianity, Judaism and Islam reflect ideologies and culture from the very time they were created therefore they are a late cultural product and not the word of God".
Gnomefro Also I'm talking about religion, not about whether God exists or not. There is a big difference between those two things.
Roxane a And in spite of that (or maybe because of that?) these »misogynistic« religions are enjoying widespread popularity amongst women. 2 out of 3 European converts to Islam (maybe the most woman-submissive religion) are women. If it had been possible to understand women, it would have been done so by now.
Most Americans incorrectly believe that giving to the church is 'charity.' Actually the vast majority of that money just goes to church expenses, including furthering the propaganda of the church. (including the indoctrination of children)'But my church feeds a hundred poor people with soup each week!' Sure, probably soup that was also donated to them for free. Even if they paid for it, it was likely about 20c a can, so feeding a hundred costs them $20... Even with labor costs added in, likely less than $100. Compare that to the thousands of dollars in donations they receive during that period. (no, I'm not talking about the collection plate, I'm talking about the known backroom talks as well as direct solicitations)
I dare you to challenge your church to open up their books and see how much they actually spend on the poor and needy.
If my date seriously and unironically tried using pascal's wager on me I would leave them on the spot. Props to Julie for sticking it out for dinner.
www.shroud.com
Pascals Wager is mathematical proof that it is more rational than not to believe in a God. Also proving that atheism is irrational.
@@uberhaxonovaPascal’s wager isn’t proof of anything, it literally means nothing because it assumes that the god of Christianity exists in order to work. It’s like me telling you that if you don’t believe I can fly you’ll go to hell, but if you choose to believe it then you’ll be saved. I can’t prove that I can fly and neither can the Christian god be proved to exist.
@@uberhaxonova Believing in something irrational just because it might be true is irrational. Do you believe in the killer unicorns that supposedly target people who don't believe in them while they sleep? I would rather start believing in it because you can never know if I made it up or if the unicorns will actually come for you.
@@uberhaxonova Believing the pink elephant is in the room is rational according to 'your' thinking.
Show the mathematics!
Julie's points were good, but, as a former christian who chats with other Christians, I haven't seen ANY that would allow me to finish my points, much less try to think about them, closest I've gotten was a christian that I met via TH-cam/Google+ who, let's me finish, then does a lot of mental gymnastics to get around what I said (mostly moving the goalposts)
Yep, same with my Cristian mom. She stops and says I misunderstood only to tell the same old Bible stories or show me a video of someone who has converted and changed their life. When I try to point out my criticisms, conversation quickly derails and we move on to something else.
Pascal's Wager is NOT an argument for the existence of any particular god. It is an argument for why you should believe in a certain god.
That being said, *IF* there is a god, I believe he would be much more angry and offended if you worshipped the wrong god or a competing god than if you simply allowed logic and reason to cause you to question the existence of god. Ignorance can be forgiven. Betrayal, less so.
+Barry Foster What if the God we know of (in Christianity) as "God" is really "Satan", and the one we know of (in Christianity) as "Satan" is really "God"? We'd better guess right, because if we get it wrong, boy is some deity going to be p*ssed.
+Barry Foster If there is a God, it wouldn't be angry or offended by anything.
+Bulos Qoqish Particularly telling, I don't think Satan ever killed anybody in the Bible, or even directly harmed anybody. All he ever did was point out truths. God, on the other hand, committed mass genocide over and over and over again, and was totally cool with rape and slavery, among other things we consider morally reprehensible. Even for Job, it was God doing all the terrible things to him, not Satan.
+Dewayne C How would you know that?
+Dewayne C Is that (an adaption of) your definition of god or do you have sufficiently objectively verifiable evidence for that claim?
In other words: is that actually subjective or truly objective?
I.e. watch your grammar, because you make claims, formulate them as facts but provide no evidence to support them.
I personally love the big flaw in Pascal's Wager. After all, what would happen if it turned out the "true" god was Thor or Zeus of Tlaltecuhtli? (assuming there is one at all). Under the circumstances, if any of those gods (or even all of them) existed, I doubt they'd be too concerned at who follows them. Or if they do, it's probably more like a big popularity contest between them all, with most of the ancient ones being out of the contest for the time being.
Also, anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God also doesn't believe in hell. Yeah, not going to be threatened with that.
This is not true. Zeus and all Greek Gods demand the mortal to whorship. If you are not Pious, you will be send to Tatartous
They'll answer that at least they tried with 1 god and they have more chances than we do (0). BUT, there is a posibility of the existance of a god that doesn't reward belief, but intelectual honesty, or even the posibility of a god that activly punishes belief in him because he's evil. Therefore, according to their logic it's twice as good to not believe in god, since there are more negative outcomes than positive ones.
There are many flaws. Another flaw is that the criteria for passing the test could be anything. Christians say you have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior but what if it's only people who have climbed Mt. Everest or people who have eaten at least 100 scones in their life?
@@Ericwvb2 I want to eat scones now.
@@JacquesdeJef
Actually Hellenism/Greek mythology is really interesting there because only the Olympians are seeking for worshipping.
Non-Olympians however don't care if you worship them or not.
Hades for example, who is *not* an Olympian god because of his position as the ruler of the underworld, doesn't really demand any offerings at all.
He wouldn't even care about you because in his eyes you would just be another soul which he judges and that's it.
Similar with his wife Persephone.
About Hecate on the other hand I'm not sure.
I mean, she is the goddess of sorcery and isn't a b*tch either who caused chaos on humans.
Best goddess is however still Hestia.
Seriously, the only reason why acient greeks made offerings to her was just because of respect. XD
Sure they feared that if they don't mantain their hearthfire and stop the offerings, they would lose their favour on her.
But aside that, they mainly did it of respect because of her altruistic and caring personality.
This goddess did really *never* something wrong.
She was basically like an idole because before any other god got their offerings *all* Greek people gave their offerings to her before they brought offerings to their main god. XD
Well and the rest of entities who don't care about what you do would be the abstract entities/incarnations of concepts which are a lot.
The only 4 concepts who would actually care about you would just be Thanathos the incarnation of death, Eleos the incarnation of mercy, clemency, compassion and pity, Armor the concept of Love (in Homer's version) and the Furies which are living curses.
Like, really literally living curses.
Oh and the remaining living Titans wouldn't care about you either.
In short: basically 99% of the greek entities don't care about offerings.
And as long as you didn't do shit like murdering or torturing someone or something, there is a high chance that you will end up in Elysium anyway which is basically the Heaven in Hellenism/Greek mythology.
So the average guy/woman who isn't a completely psychopath or cheating person would win here anyway.
This is so unrealistic!
... She wouldn't go hiking in a fancy dress and high heels!
And who goes hiking up a hill overlooking what appears to be a prison camp?
And their feet don't even reach the floor in the restaurant
special hiking dress and hiking heels.
but the rest of it is realistic though.
Answering the title cold: For one thing I think a 'god' might spot someone was faking it. And... for another... Being condemned to heaven would be the worst hell I can imagine.
When I think of GoAnimate videos, I think of those crappy Caillou Gets Grounded videos. This is probably the most intelligent GoAnimate video I've ever seen.
Love the fact their feet don’t reach the ground on the restaurant chairs….
They are kids
omg just bone already
LMAO
"Julie I was thinking about you and wondered if you would like to go for a walk with me then I could stick my pink banana in you maybe I could eat your flower, you could peel and eat my pink banana too. Would you like to Julie? I peeled my pink banana thinking of your flower last night Julie and I sprayed ice cream everywhere, would you like some?"
"Yes, Jake that sounds good. But I thought you said you were going to church?"
"I am at church with you Julie, you make me feel good, really good Shall we go and worship each other"
"I got my coat, lets go"
3:30 Giant's Restaurant: the restaurant with giant chairs and tables that make you feel like a child.
This guy is gonna get home and be like "I'm never calling that woman again."
Pascal's Wager is invalid for the reason that it is infinitely more likely that the stakes of the wager were invented (and enhanced) in order for the wager to work rather than the stakes being actually true. We have no evidence that heaven and hell exist, or that sinners are sent to one and saved souls are sent to the other. However, we have mountains of evidence that people make stuff up for their own gain. It's therefore overwhelmingly likely that the wager is a con job.
Imagine if I said: "If you believe what I say, and donate 10% of your (pre-tax) income to me, and subject your intellect to a few principles, and spend your Sunday mornings in a building you built for me (A), you will get a jelly donut. But if you don't (B), you'll get a light rap on your knuckles." Well, you'd say "I'll take the knuckle rap, please." OK, now if (A), you'll get an old Ford Explorer but if (B), you have to work as a dishwasher for a month. Not sure about you, but I'd still take (B). OK - now if (A), you get eternal rewards, but if (B), you get eternal punishment. Now we're talking! It's so obvious this is how it went that the wager should be dismissed out of hand. It's childish.
The problem with this video is that it portrays the Christian in the cartoon as reasonable and rational.
If Christians were reasonable and rational, they would not be Christians in the first place.
It shows they can become reasonable and rational if it gets them pussy. That's far more credible.
I was a reasonable and rational Christian. That's why I'm an atheist now.
As was I
The problem with this video is that its not a porno like I thought it was,
Obviously Christians are not reasonable or rational... But because he wants to get into her knickers he pretends to be!
More than once I have spoken to evangelical Christians in a similar manner,more than once,those I had this kind of discussion with have exploded in anger and actually became physically voilent
Any eternal god without the fear of annihilation, death or impending pain can not know empathy or true love for everyone. No childhood = no personality .
I use this same argument all the time, but people just respond with "Nooooooo, god knows everything", I hate people that do that. :/
Ashley Mills he does know everthing:)
Russell Edwards And how would you know that?
Vyktor Dreygo My god is Odin. Who began, like Sitting Bull in his sun dance, by hanging speared on "the windy tree" 9 days .Shamanic Ordeal.Leaves you still mortal, but with Sight and Power.Liitle Jeeezuss in Jerusalem failed the Test. So they had to steal his body.Also, Prometheus. And Mother Moon. The Earth Mother, Gaia=ecosphere. We are all cells in Her body. Some of our parasitic species, polluters+eco-rapists are cancer cells...
Richard Mahn Ravens on my shoulders,wolves at my wrists, I wander the world with one eye that sees All...
I really like this. I'm an atheist, but I despise atheist arguments that are hateful and disrespectful. This depicted a respectful conversation. Atheists, take note. THIS is the proper way to talk to believers.
Why is she going hiking in a dress and high-heels?
And why is he always looking slightly above and behind her? It looks like he's just going through the motions, and really doesn't want her to join him in church.
He was so kind, addressing her politely by looking straight at her hair while she spoke.
You wanna know why this videos fucked up? Because the christian is just sitting there, being polite, agreeing with obvious facts. Instead of hopping and screaming and suddenly turning into a Tyrannosaurus Rex, breaking through the roof and rampaging down the street in a fit of violent religious fury.
it may not have much to do with the video but...why are you using GO! Animate?
+Ryan Starrenburg Cause I can't animate? Go Animate let's me spend time working up content instead of trying to create characters and animate them. I know it has it's drawbacks, but the message is what's important.
i know i'm sorry if i sounded a little rude. but it's a great video.
Thanks, Ryan :)
+Larry Rhodes I'm positively impressed how good the "robot voice" has become. Haven't really seen any newer development since I bought my current navigation device. It has come far in a handful of years.
Do you directly feed your script into the program and coordinate it with the cartoon figures / camera angles?
Yes, just select which character is supposed to be talking and type or paste your text into their talk-bubble during the creation process. It's actually pretty easy. Don't have much control over camera angle though, just some pan/zoom effects.
The one unrealistic part is everything Julie said not going in one of Jake's ears and directly out the other.
It took me a while to find this video again. It is the best video on pascal's wager and I'll be saving it this time. It deserves a lot more views and likes.
Thanks Kuro. I have this in written form on my blog if you'd like that.. You can find it here.
www.digitalfreethought.com/blog/2017/08/07/why-pascals-wager-is-invalid/
What if your god isn't real and the real god doesn't let you in his paradise as you prayed to the wrong god but he lets atheists in as they were at least neutral?
Thanks for posting the video Larry. Unfortunately the events in the video could never occur in real life. The failure is in presupposing that you can find even one Christian who will listen to, understand, and actually consider the arguments against Pascal's Wager. What would really happen is either A) the Christian gets angry, states you are going to Hell, and goes off in a huff, or B) The Christian puts his fingers in his ears, and runs away screaming "God is Great!"
I’m a Christian. I took the time to read and consider your thoughts and opinions. God Bless
I can't imagine getting religious people to listen to so much logic so pleasantly, and Pascal's Wager collapses with the argument of other faiths immediately, so no need to waste time with any of the other arguments in a real debate on the wager, but it was all very good information to consider for oneself and for use in other religious debates for sure. Very thorough. Good job.
By the way, long before I ever heard of Pascal's Wager, I thought that using such an argument proved that Christianity was immoral. I had always been taught that doing something merely to gain rewards or avoid punishments was immoral, so Christianity proved itself to be immoral for this and so many other reasons long ago, and this is the primary reason why I never respected it, and the only thing that shocks me is that so many other people either don't care or don't even see its obvious hypocritical nature, thus proving that they are either happy to be immoral or willing to be fooled, both of which are bad in my opinion already.
That's why they picked such a cute atheist.
Hello...it....is....me...in....monotone....creep-y....voice. Hi...I...am...also...in...monotone...creep-y...voice.
Honestly, this computer voice ruins everything. Why people use it, I'd rather hear a real person's voice no matter how bad it sounds. This just took the life out of the video. So many people use that creepy voice, ick. Like conspiracy videos.
HAHAHA, yeah I hear it
Are they 2 feet tall or are those chairs massive?
I could not finish this video because of the voice acting. Ugh.
The voices are actually computer generated, so it can't really be called "voice acting", so much as it is text reading.
jamestang83 . That's Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins. But yes, you are right. LOL
It's not "voice acting" - it's generated by a computer program!
:(
Why can't i reply to delawarecop Anyways you already failed. Even if you were right, which you are not (what is the point of a religion unless your claim is right?), all it takes is one other religion to make that claim for pascals wager a fail. Second, forget other religions, let's just look at the 41,000 denominations of Christianity where many believe the other 40,999 groups are going to hell with all the non-believers. How do you deal with that?
Sometimes I wonder if there must be a god but he is some asshole who loves to trick people into believing bullshit so they waste what little life they were lucky enough to be born with. Who cares if you have no purpose after death, enjoy what you have now and if you are a morally just person and god exists and is a good being, he isn't going to torture anyone, especially not for an eternity. Now if its the god I think it might be then we should all be worried, you even more then me.
Ditto :)
delawarecop that isn't a reply
D.J.P.K.
Yes it is :)
delawarecop well it is a bad one but i have seen how you argue so you must just know you have nothing this time.
D.J.P.K.
I dont argue, thats your job. I'm simply setting the record straight by telling people the facts. Pascals wager is entirely logical from the atheistic perspective, because whats wrong with believing something that you cannot prove to be a scientific fact - atheists do it every day when they talk about darwinian evolution:) So it shouldn;t be hard to believe in God and follow His Commandments.
Reality is, that atheists dont like to be tied to a moral code that is established by the Creator, they want to make their own morals so that they can do whatever they think is right in accordance with their own fascist presuppositional world view.
"They invent and sell you the cure." Truth. Scary truth.
Ah if only some rational discussion actually worked on people like that. But no, they scramble to come up with excuses and deflections instead.
I once heard a Humanist preacher elegantly skewer Pscal's Wager. She said What if you get to the Pearly Gates, and instead of finding St Peter asking if you've been good, you meet THARGROD the Party Demon, and he asks you "DID YOU HAVE A GOOD TIME?!?!"
I didn't know there was such a thing as a humanist "preacher".
Crom is my god. If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!
then julie and jake went into the woods an-. . . oh. . . this isn't pornhub.
you're too young to know what big people do in the woods little jameses. now run allong and go play with your matchbox cars and leave my study
*smokes pipe*
Ahhh the innocence of youth. so beautiful
no. just someone who hasn't the time to explain in detail a joke.
and someone who is replying with more jokes
Oh shit, I'm sorry.
she's hot
Yea she is lol
She'll be even hotter when she's burning in hell for all eternity for not accepting Jesus Christ as her savior. (jk)
kragseven See that "(jk)" at the end of my post? That means "just kidding". I, in fact, don't believe in god ;)
Stop. You're making Atheists look bad. We're supposed to be intelligent, compassionate, and independently moral. You sound like an angry teenager. Please find a role model. Maybe Stephen Fry.
Calm down son it’s just a picture.
What the hell? So do they sleep together or not?
(just playin, great vid!)
I dig the giant chairs in the restaurant! Where is it?
wow... if only these conversations went THAT smoothly and most religious people were that open to rethinking deeply held beliefs. Very concise and articulate. nice work!
I agree with what the lady is saying. Absolutely agree with it, up until she says that the soul isn't real. I was brought up in a very religious home. I was taught that sinners go to hell and the saved go to heaven. Shit, I was terrified of not being able to live a complete life because I believed that Jesus could burst through the clouds at any minute and just end it all. And I was 12 at the time. Can you imagine a 12 year old dreading that they wouldn't be able to live a full, complete life all because he thought an all powerful deity could take it away in an instant? That being said, even though I no longer believe in an all powerful god, I still hold a belief that there is something inside of us that is eternal. I don't know, I may be wrong. I don't know for certain that there is an afterlife. What I do know without a doubt, though, is that our universe is so vast that we may never even come close to seeing all of it's facets. The fact is that in every major scientific revelation, humans believed that they were one step closer to understanding the absolute truths of the universe when actually it's the contrary. Humans may have learned more about nature and the world they live in, but each time we revealed a new piece of the puzzle thinking that we were that much closer fitting all of the pieces together, in reality the puzzle only grew bigger and more complicated.
Nicely done. Also very perceptive. I particularly liked how you went further than just explaining how Pascal's Wager fails, in that you explain how cults like this, and that's exactly what Christianity is, use fear and horror stories to control their sheep.
I like how he agreed with her throughout the entire “debate”... no bias at all.
The guy must be really in love!
why?
@@davidhatcher7016 Because he's actually listening to an atheist.
so Pascal's wager... Do you want to enjoy your life or do you spent your life worshipping a god, wich has no evidence for its existence...
With other words do you want 1000$ now or a 1 to 3000 chance to get 1000000$ in the future? But I can not tell you for sure when or if you get the 1000000$, also I can provide no evidence that the 1000000$ even exist.
As a Christian I reject the use of Pascal's Wager. I also reject the use of Occam's Razor.
frank dunleavy "Occam's Razor - a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct"
Because my experience tells me it's not often the simplest answer.
wmpratt2010 Well, it's not a law or anything, it's just advice. It's simply a "principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." But it does no guarantee correctness. It mostly just keeps you from going off in 16 different, complicated directions. ie. if a cookie is missing and a child is present, don't go looking for invisible cookie demons. :)
Larry Rhodes Actually I always viewed the use of Pascal's Wager as less of a reason to believe in a god and more of an illustration of logical fallacies. How people arrive at their various beliefs (including non-religious beliefs) is never a straight line. I've heard atheists use Occam's Razor to justify no god (even though a god created universe is certainly less complex than how we're told it came to be by science). I never heard of an invisible cookie demon but I have seen a cookie monster.
wmpratt2010 How is a God created universe less complex than what we are told by scientists? Also, what scientist has told you they have the definitive answer to how the universe began?
NerdLogic969
"Also, what scientist has told you they have the definitive answer to how the universe began?"
Scientists always sell everything as fact (rather it is or not). So yea right now the Big Bang is it. Even thought any evidence for it is circumstantial at best.
Either this is a tiny dimension with tiny people or someone made those chairs fucking huge.
do these people sound like robots to anyone else? the guy sound like hal 3000 and the girl sounds like siri
I’ve watch my fair share of goanimate and I can confirm that these are in fact text to speech voices, the creator probably used them because they are easily accessible on goanimate
what? no sex in the woods!!!!!!
Thats the next video
🤞
This is a really good video. Very informative!
That guy is trying to get into her pants SOOOOOO hard.
"Julie, baby, I really need you to accept the Lord, so we can start getting to know each other better in a biblical sense..."
Why does it look like they are sitting on a hill looking over a concentration camp?
It's supposed to be an army camp. It just happened to be below the look-out point.
Larry Rhodes haha I wish all couples where like them...
The essence of SADOMASOCHISM is love me out of fear. God dosnt give us a choice it's a threat belive in me or burn in hell forever
This is a big flaw with this video. Any self respecting Christian man would not purposely date an attractive Atheist woman, while hoping that she becomes a Christian so that he looks less shallow for selecting only a natural, pretty woman to get into a relationship with. In other words, Christian men should not date women that they know are going to constantly disagree with them on religious issues. My brother followed the Word of God prior to meeting, falling in love with, and marrying his non-Christian wife. After being married to her for 6 years, and refusing to question her over her non-religious stance, he became an Atheist.
Good for him!
Doesn't seem like "following the word of god" has done you any good, while your brother is probably happier than ever. Think about that.
Grafight23 Just because my brother says with his mouth that he is happier for not accepting that God is real does not mean his mentality holds the same worth. And, who are you to say that following God's Word has not done me any good? You don't know what my life is like to make that judgment.
Rawk4Life I'm going by your post. You say "no self respecting christian would date an atheist woman..." etc., etc. but then you reveal that your brother did exactly that. You seem bitter, disappointed and intolerant toward your brother. Maybe you secretly wish you could be free like him, and that makes you feel guilty. But wait: What if there is no god? Aren't you wasting your life worshipping a fictional character? If God is real, why does he need priests and prophets to pass on his will to us? Why doesn't he tells us directly? I'll tell you why: Because prophets, priests, oracles, shamans and medicine men throughout history have invented gods and god stories to stay in business.
Grafight23 First off, I am not bitter and intolerant towards my brother because I am not jamming down his throat that he'll burn in hell forever. When someone claims to be of God, and then down the road turns to Atheism, you have to wonder if they were a Christian to begin with. Secondly, what do you mean wishing that I was free like him? He still has to obey the laws set in motion by our government regardless of whether or not he follows a particular religion. I have never felt more free in my life since the day I gave my life to Christ because without Him I would be a worry wort and manic depressive each time something went wrong.
Third, the Bible makes it clear that if people don't listen to God's commands and instruction from His servants and children, then they aren't going to change their minds if the Lord Himself stood in front of them and spoke the same words. Remember when your parents would tell you as a little child not to place your hand on the stove burner when it was turned on because you'd burn yourself? Then, if you ignored their advice and did it anyway you'd end up in pain and then tell yourself "Now I wish I had listened to them?" The same goes with the principles in God's Word.
Lastly, do you have proof that prophets, priests, oracles, shamans, and medicine men make up god stories just to stay in business, or are you saying that just as an excuse not to believe that there really may be a God amongst our universe? It's a known fact that people who CHOOSE not to believe in something will come up with any excuse to claim that it was never there to begin with, and then use the "I don't need proof if it doesn't exist" scapegoat.
Rawk4Life Glad to hear you're nice to your brother. I withdraw my previous comment. Now, I think it's very possible that your brother was a true and faithful christian, because I was one too. It's not easy I tell you. I WISH, there was a wonderful parental figure waiting for us after we die. I wish I could believe that my soul will live on for eternity. I wish I knew that despite all the evil in the world, justice will be served in the end. But I don't anymore, and I can't pretend that I do.
Second point: The laws of the government don't intrude into my thoughts. Religion does. The pastor and the bible don't only tell you what to do, but also what to think. Surrendering your mind is the ultimate servitude.
Third: I don't know where the bible says that, but I'm sure that if Jesus would appear out of nothing in front of me, I would change my mind right now. I would trust him much more than I trust Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart or the Watchtower Society.
Fourth: Sure they may be some creator in the universe, but everything I experience tells me that it's far more likely that there isn't. And if there is, its certainly not the god described in the bible or any other religious text or mythology. All those gods are too human upon careful examination.
So did he score that very nyt?
This interaction is almost as unbelievable as belief in God. Given the same arguments I have never had such a balanced and open minded religious person interact with me like that. I guess there is still hope that one day those who do believe will grow out of their superstition and the human race can move onto a more enlightened future.
Well said, I wish I met more religious people that are this open to new ideas and reasoning.
on the lol sidenote - find me IRL so rational women that could hold a logical argument for so long.
On the real note: ppl believe in religions - not god. So if you take religions out of the equation - pascals wager works for me.
hhmm, im curious to know how ?
Hector Borges how god w/o religion? Same way atheists know right from wrong. It's inside everyone and it's called conscience.
But how do you know that is god? Because i have a conscience and i dont know if it came from a god or not, i assume it did not, because there is nothing that tells me it is.
Just because I have no other better explanation to choose from I say it's some invisible spaghetty monster that I don't have any other way to identify it with except for that feeling of right and wrong.
And it's not mind. Because mind is the "opposition" of that feeling, that tries to get away with not doing what conscience tells it to do.
Maksims Ivanovs just because you don't have a better explanation doesn't mean it's God.
To use your logic, I can't explain how my car works, that doesn't mean it's God too...
I hate how this video presumes to speak for all atheists....
Six people gave a thumbs up to this comment. I wonder, from any of them, in what regard do you mean that it presumes to speak for all?
She said she was an atheist, and that she had a particular belief rather than a simple lack of belief. I'll grant that as stated, it leaves itself wide open to misinterpretation. However, I've made really strong and cogent arguments which were in no way ambiguous, but which were "misunderstood" nonetheless by ardent theists desperate to prove me wrong about something, simply for not agreeing with them.
Several atheists and agnostics and even some theists chimed in to attempt to correct the misinformation spewed forth by my interlocutor in those instances, and yet all were dismissed as equally dishonest. It has happened on several occasions, especially in the comment section of youtube videos such as this one (though not in this particular one... had to clarify because as stated it could have been confusing).
*****
It's a clear conflation issue, where the idea is conflated with the person.
*****
What the Hell are you talking about? Are you confusing me with Donovan Thompson ?
I did not assume anyone was speaking for me. Why would I? I know my own mind, and therefore I know whether or not anyone is representing my personal views on any given topic.
The bots who. Voiced the characters in this. Video. Deserve a raise. And smaller chairs.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
The one-sided bias in this video does not surprise me as it's nothing but Atheist propaganda used to try and paint the Christian in this video as an idiot who doesn't know anything about his beliefs. It's baloney to portray him in that way.
Funny thing, a study in the stats shows on average Atheist know more about and not just christianity but almost all of them. Now I don't have the numbers or the names and this is where I will fail cause you will need to look it up your self. I know god tells you not to do that but why most Atheist are Atheist is because we look into things. The world is beautiful and we can find out anything about it. Or just accept god did it.
Nobody paints Christians as idiots, they do it to themselves, by believing, puerile, nonsensical and supernatural idiocy.
24414330 You just contradicted yourself. You just painted Christians as morons by assuming that what they believe is nonsensical and supernatural idiocy. Otherwise, you could have just said something along the lines of "Christians believe in what cannot be proven by science." But of course, you took the immature, degradation route.
Rawk4Life No, you prove exactly my point. Firstly, you used the word morons not me. Secondly, I do not need scientific proof that it doesn't rain bread, that burning bushes cannot talk, that eating a bread wafer and drinking wine turns into the body of superman, that the Earth is flat, that there are seven headed dragons and that snakes and donkeys can talk. So if you have the scientific evidence that these things are true and can happen, then come up with the evidence, you will win a Nobel prize. Until then, these superstitious beliefs remain idiotic and puerile.
24414330 So what if I used the word morons? Are you trying to play dumb and claim you didn't try to say that what Christians believe in is of a ridiculous or idiotic nature? By the way, moron is a synonym for idiot, which you should know if you passed grade school. Secondly, if you don't need scientific evidence to support a talking, burning bush, that a donkey talked to Balaam, or the shape of Earth being flat (which is not supported by the Bible despite accusations), then you would need faith in order to believe it. So, you're basically saying that you'd rather blindly believe something that you don't know is true, than to put faith in what science cannot prove as being true. There's no "until then," and if you can't back up the accusation that the Christian belief system is nothing but superstitions, then there's no way that statement by itself can be accurate either.
I will stand by the following statement until I die. If God is not real, and the Bible is a book of lies, then why debate it to death and exhaust yourself trying to denounce what wasn't real to begin with? If the notion of no God was an absolute, everyone would be in full agreement with each other about it.
There's a whole lot wrong with this. The athiest assumes that they know all religions but they don't. They give general accusations that aren't factual.
First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption.
RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis.
RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't.
RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?. Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally.
RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous.
RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one.
RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing.
Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it.
RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right?
For the sake of argument I'll ignore the proof of spirit, afterlife stuff.
I'll also agree with the fact that believing in God can be about the fear of going to hell. But there's tons of good that comes along with it.
So I just gave 8 reasons why the explanation in this video why pascals wager is wrong is wrong.
"First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption."
The point is Pascal's Wager presents it as two options (and one of them specifically being Christianity) with 50/50 probability, meaning only four possible outcomes. The fact that those are not the only options is what is being explained.
"RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis. "
Each sect can claim vastly different criteria to get into heaven, which does not fit into Pascal's 50/50 chance. Some say simple belief is all that is needed, but many others insist you must pass a few more tests like live a certain way or donate this % of your income.
"RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't."
People may change their belief based on new knowledge, that is different than "choosing a belief" (pretending to believe).
"RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?. Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally. "
Exactly. You can not fool a god by pretending to believe because of Pascal's Wager.
"RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous. "
Further proving the point that Pascal did not take anything into account for his 50/50 wager. Because if you put in just a few of the actual variables the probability drops down to a fraction of a percent.
"RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one."
No comment.
"RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing.
Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it."
I know it is not all churches, but too many do dubious things to get donations.
"RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right?"
If you were to apply Pascal's Wager then there would be a 50/50 chance that blowing yourself up gets you an express VIP pass to heaven.
god isn't real. i bet my soul and my left nut. that's called dave's wager. and i'ts way better than pascals.
MrNateSPF
First of all, Christianity is the only religion that says that if you believe you will go to heaven. So the whole statement about thousands of religions to choose from is an incorrect assumption."
> The point is Pascal's Wager presents it as two options (and one of them specifically being Christianity) with 50/50 probability, meaning only four possible outcomes. The fact that those are not the only options is what is being explained.
>> There are three major world religions and all have common roots. By far the most prevalent faith worldwide is Christianity with billions of followers. Full disclosure: I am a believing Christian.
To me, the (valid) wager is: Should one ask spiritual questions or not? Should one reach out to God and ask if He is real or not? That's it.
Should you try to reach out to Christ and do so sincerely in a way that follows His teachings? In trying (and potentially failing) you lose NOTHING and it is over in minutes. In NOT trying you could potentially lose, well, more than can be put into words. Is it really worth the gamble to not at least try?
Ask yourself why, WHY you will not perform this simple act? Be honest with yourself. Is it not REALLY because you are worried about what could happen?
Do you honestly believe billions of people are simply dim-witted, deluded or that gullible? Are you not even the slightest bit curious? I say YOU ARE or you would not be reading this thread. The psych courses I have taken would lead me to believe Larry actually wants someone to convince him he is wrong as well.
Anyone who says they KNOW there is no God is just kidding and discrediting themselves. You cannot logically prove a negative but I will be closing that can of worms back up now.
"RE: ...The wrong sect of the right religion. Does that not require belief? We're talking about Pascals wager and belief, not about the chances of being raised differently. This argument is misleading to appear to have factual basis. "
>Each sect can claim vastly different criteria to get into heaven, which does not fit into Pascal's 50/50 chance. Some say simple belief is all that is needed, but many others insist you must pass a few more tests like live a certain way or donate this % of your income.
>> If a church is telling you you MUST contribute a certain percentage of your income to "get into Heaven" and you do not believe this is reasonable (I would not) I as a Christian, will be the first to tell you to look for another church.
The thing that makes a Christian a Christian is believing the contents of the Nicene Creed and having a relationship with Christ. Anything else is people/groups following their hearts. Find a church that feels like home is the best advice I have been given. The differences from one "sect" to another are all of secondary importance. It is stated repeatedly in this thread a "God would know if one was faking their belief", yes He would! He would also know if you were sincerely trying to do what you felt was right! I believe in a loving God who knows we are going to grow and learn and make mistakes and who will forgive us along the way. What is of primary importance is the connection.
"RE: ...You can't turn belief on and off like a light. Yes you can. She went from believing in Christianity to being a non-believer. Is that not turning it on and off like a light? You either believe God is the creator or you don't."
> People may change their belief based on new knowledge, that is different than "choosing a belief" (pretending to believe).
>> Exactly, like new knowledge gained through pursuing a spiritual life. One thing I learned while becoming a Christian is the concept that everyone is created with a God-shaped vacuum. We are created to be spiritual beings (look into Carl Jung). Some people fill this void with the pursuit of material things, the pursuit of pleasure/sex or even keeping busy promoting concepts like Atheism. None of things things truly satisfy though, the more you pour them in, the less it helps. Their lives of quiet desperation persist. I did not know true peace until I became a Christian. It's called "the peace that passes all understanding" and I am here to tell you it is real.
"RE: ...Do you think an omniscient God wouldn't really know if I believe. How can you fake believing? I mean, you can fake believing to your friends by going to church and going through the motions. But that's not believing is it?Believing is internal. You can't fake believing internally. "
> Exactly. You can not fool a god by pretending to believe because of Pascal's Wager.
>> Again I don't think the idea is to suddenly decide or pretend to believe, that would be pointless, not to mention unsustainable if you are a sincere and honest person.
"RE: ...I have to believe in demons, Cherubin (etc). First of all Pascals wager is about believing in God which could translate to anything. But if we're really talking about Christianity, it's about the death and rise of Jesus. Does it mean you need to believe everything else related to Jesus, no. The bible says to prove all things. So this whole slippery slope idea that you need to accept everything is ludicrous. "
> Further proving the point that Pascal did not take anything into account for his 50/50 wager. Because if you put in just a few of the actual variables the probability drops down to a fraction of a percent.
>> Actual variables? This is discussed above. You seem to be obsessed with a "sure thing" on paper, up front. You are trying to reduce this to an equation of some sort. All I can tell you is once you connect with Christ you will know where you stand spiritually, You will know you have a "sure thing". You won't be worried about legalities or if you are on the right path or in the correct group. It is a personal 1:1 relationship and what really matters.
"RE:....it would involve putting preachers in a power position over me. Is completely false. I have never heard of or seen a church where a pastor was in control of me. I mean, use common sense on that one."
> No comment.
>> Larry is simply going to any length to demonize. I think any rational person would know the difference between a sincere church and say a cult.
"RE:...you lose by spending your money on the church. No you don't. Tithing is volunteer. Pascal was not referring to the church when he said that you lose nothing. Besides, there's a difference between donating your money and losing it."
> I know it is not all churches, but too many do dubious things to get donations.
>> There are unscrupulous people in ALL walks of life. I would not accept this as a reason to not explore a spiritual life any more than I would accept deciding to never vote because there are corrupt politicians. I also think your are greatly exaggerating the issue for obvious reasons.
"RE:...Convinced of fighting in holy wars and blowing yourself up. This is not the result of believing in God but a result of believing outlandish beliefs associated with the religion. The reason this stuff makes the news is because it's uncommon. If every Muslim believed in blowing themselves up then there would be no Muslims, right?"
> If you were to apply Pascal's Wager then there would be a 50/50 chance that blowing yourself up get's you a VIP pas ito heaven.
>> Sorry but this is just utter nonsense and a self-serving oversimplification. No legitimate Muslim would condone such acts.
Hello *****, you seem a little confused there so let's see if we can clear this up for you. We are commenting on a video on TH-cam. This video is about Pascal's Wager and all of my comments are within the context of the video. Most of your replies were completely irrelevant to the points I made and I would rather not bounce from subject to subject, as not to divert from the topic at hand.
Pascal posited that there are only two options; the god he believes in exists or no god exists. Then he supposed that the odds between one or the other were the same as flipping a coin. You said it is "just utter nonsense and a self-serving oversimplification" to put 50/50 odds on a religious view that you do not already believe, and I hope you can see that Pascal's Wager is the exact same thing only for a religious view you do believe.
MrNateSPF I'm sorry but I see no cause for your attempt at condescension. If you took offence at "nonsense" I admit that was rude, I just found what your were saying, putting Terrorists in the same camp with people following a credible faith, as pretty insulting. If you are just going to take everything to ridiculous lengths, the conversation becomes pointless.
As for sticking to the talking points, I responded to each one and tried to expand on the discussion and add additional context. If this breaks some form of TH-cam etiquette I'm not aware of... so be it.
Laugh now, pay later
Everybody is going to somebody else's hell. The time to worry about it is when they prove that heaven, hell and souls are real. Until, don't sweat it and enjoy your life.
"Laugh now, pay later" is a lazy comment from a lazy mind that doesn't want to do the actual work of thinking. It's easier for a weak-minded person to lazily subscribe to the notion that their opponents will "burn in hell" for not believing the same things they believe. The casual gloating inherent in this mindset -- the smug satisfaction they feel knowing that those who disagree with their faith will be immolated -- shows the true nature of their hearts.
more threats lol
Julie strips Jake of his beliefs and Jake thanks her without defending his stance at all. Real backbone there Jake.
Of course its a valid argument, except atheists dont like to be reminded of it:)
There is only one God and Creator of all. Not all religions claim to be right at all, so this whole video is based on false assumptions - pretty typical of atheists though:)
"Not all religions claim to be right at all" So, only the ones that claim to be right, are right. Is that your point? So you admit that there are hundreds of correct religions besides Christianity?
Well lets say that not all religions clame to be right, but the once that do are right
so for one religion you would be , as stated by your argument , aloud to go to heaven, but by a other one not, so your soul is still doomed , as that religion is right to, and by yet an other one you are reincarnated for example
what is gonna happen with you then if that one is right to, is your soul gone be split into a thousand parts and judged by every "right" religions rules , that be just silly .
I personally don't believe in anything, I'll see when I die if there is something, but i am not gonna base my whole live on a believe, I base my life on what I can see and feel and smell etc, things that are proven to be real, and when I die , and there is nothing there, then I lived a full life .
Your make-believe gods (and dirty old pornographic collections of bronze age goat-herder's campfire tales) have no relevance to the real world.
Karl Schneider
Its more relevant than ever, but your opinion is not:)
delawarecop I was just carrying your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. Further, it IS stupid to think that a religion is right if it says it's right. I could start a new religion tomorrow (like Joe Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard did) and in the religious text, I could say this religion is right. Would that make it right? That is just dumb.
Also, about the prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled by Jesus; you have to remember that the people who wrote the New Testament HAD the old testament at hand. They could write that Jesus fulfilled any of the prophecies they choose simply by writing that into the NT texts.
"How much time and energy do you sacrifice-?"
Same point as before. That time and energy forces you to care, to form connections with people, to do things, to get outside of your comfort zone. If left to my own devices, I'm liable to spend all my free time sitting on the couch and relaxing.
Julie's smart, she'll convert Jake.
They are either very short or the table and chairs are enormous.
People are not that logical. She drops him and sails off to the Carribean. His pastor gets a revelation, and he spends his last days in a cave waiting for the second coming. There love was not to be.
Are those chairs huge? or are the people tiny?
Yes
The pascals wager doesnt state that there is no drawbacks to believing. It says that if you believe, and god is real the loss is finite and the gain is infinite
It says “It costs nothing” or “You lose nothing.” Which isn’t true.
There were some very good points to this. The idea that, if God doesn't exist, you haven't lost anything by believing in Him, is shown to be untrue and the specific points about what you actually will have lost are well put. I discovered that same basic idea myself, but what is lost is much deeper than just money lost in tithing, and hours lost in conversation with fellow Christers. What you actually lose if you believe in God and He doesn't exist, is the Truth. Because you are believing what turns out to be a lie.
Now while I don't go the route of atheism, there are things deep within us that atheism and materialism will never be able to satisfy. But this doesn't mean I go after the path of Christianity either.
Hi Volkh Veronovich. I agree with what you say, but not that "time spent talking to Christians is wasted". Where there is no communication, there is no hope of change. I always bring up the subject of honesty, a moral ethic that affects everyone and everything now and forever, but doesn't depend on God existing. (Although I'm fairly sure he or she does). The last Book of the Bible mentions the importance of honesty 3 times in the last two chapters. (Rev 21:08) (Rev 21:27), & (Rev 22:15) all say how "no liars get to heaven". Believing in Jesus or the tall stories about him isn't mentioned, so my guess is that the Christianity we know was originally a philosophy which the Romans took over to further their own slavery based empire. An offshoot of Stoicism possibly. Cheers, P.R.
I didn't say you would blow you're self up, I said it was a possiblility, and there are people who do just that pretty much every day. And usually exercising you're mind does improve it, but if the exercise that you're performing is to exercise Faith, in supernatural things, that's self-defeating. You're just setting you're brain up to believe things on no evidence, and that makes you prey to those who want to take advantage of your gullibility.
I love that restaurant with the chairs where their feet don't touch the ground. :-P
Have you thought about making any more GoAnimate videos?
No, they really aren't received that well. I have been doing a Digital Freethought Radio Hour podcast for the last 6 years though. You can find them here:
th-cam.com/video/u4D9Ow9nOtU/w-d-xo.html
@@Doubter5 Is it because GoAnimate is the nexus of all the cringeworthy Caillou gets grounded videos?
@@supizgamerpro101
Ha.. I don't know about that. :) I'll have to look them up.
I had not even heard of Pascal’s wager until a few months ago but I came up with the same idea in middle school or so figuring faith is almost like a insurance policy. It wasn’t until a few years ago that I started to reevaluate that idea and decided if this was going to be my life then I needed to really believe and strive for a relationship with god and try to understand him only when I started looking I started finding problems I took a break for a couple years and then a few months ago began trying to really understand the Bible again and came across some atheist arguments only instead of rejecting them like I had many times before I started to find myself actually agreeing with them. I still consider myself Christian for the time being but my doubts have grown exponentially over the last few months.
Yeah, It is attractive in it's simplicity. That's probably why it's so popular with believers of all religions. You have to actually think about it to determine the flaws.. Like most beliefs.
12 years old TTS and animation, what a sight.
The Pascals wager only makes sense if spending time worshipping a god as a theist doesnt cost you anything - including time.
That is not the case as it most CERTAINLY do.
The pascals wager only makes sense if you take one god into account in a way that either god exist - the god we are talking about, or he doesnt.
That is not the case as you have no way of demonstrating that the god you do the wager about is the only option.
Now if we expand the wager to include every single god that mankind have worshipped. Then the odds of you worshipping the right god is suddenly ridiculously low.
And ofcourse god could be one that nobody have thought of which essentially expands the odds to be aproaching infinitly small.
The theist is just one more than that.
Good video but why are the chairs so big it's bugging me O.o
How does she get her hair tucked under her eyebrows?
Lol
I like the simple layout of logical arguments in this video. And the counter to Pascal's Wager is particularly valid. Though i may disagree with one or two points here and there.
I can't tell what's worse the animation or the argument
It is a programming language, but Blaise Pascal (19 June 1623 - 19 August 1662) preceded the computer software language by several centuries.
Just a few things:
1. There is actually a very coherent (and biblically sound) argument that some Christians put forth to show that Hell does not exist - it isn't biblical.
micahredding.com/blog/series/there-no-hell
2. Most of us (theists and atheists alike) believe in a few things we cannot observe or prove. My favorite is the belief in an objective morality, the existence of right and wrong itself. We have no evidence that there is truly a such thing as right and wrong, yet most of us very clearly believe in it. So I don't think we should criticize others just for believing in something with no evidence.
3. I think one *can* make themselves believe in something supernatural (outside of nature), though it may take a while. The question about a million dollars isn't a good analogy because a million dollars can be confirmed or disconfirmed; that's not the case with a god.
4. Christians have actually answered the question about "What if you never hear about Christianity?" with the contention that the bible only says those who *reject* the religion don't make it to heaven.
5. I don't think there's much to lose *either way*. Even tithing isn't really a *loss*; I mean, you're really just paying to keep the event (something you obviously enjoy/appreciate on some level) going. And no, you don't have to let anyone or anything *control* you, to be religious. Many Christians, for example, don't believe in biblical inerrancy. I'd even go so far as to say I'm sure religion *helps* some people; who are we to say what's worth whose time?
And finally, 6. Let's keep in mind that there are tons of Christians who don't go by any form of argumentation including Pascal's Wager but by what they're convinced is an experience of god in their lives. Many Christians are former atheists who claim to have experienced god in some way, so none of this would shake their faith.
But I agree with the overall point, about Pascal's Wager.
"If I pretended to believe, do you think that God wouldn't know?"
Is that a concern someone had ever?
What's with the robot voices? Couldn't you find a few guys to record the voices? I'd help.
maybe already asked, but what's the significance of the guard tower in the background? Seems to hint at some sort of prison..... ya think?
It's North Korea and they are walking around the 38th parallel
So are those just really tiny people or just really big chairs?
Pascal was probably joking when he came up with his wager, and I often think that, if there is a god, he must have created the world as a joke. With humor we demonstrate how we are indeed created in the image of God.