It obvioiusly follows that your belief in statement X is not a matter of choice..
Of course, you can pretend to believe it: If there is a snowstorm raging outside, you can say "what a beautiful weather, let's go out to have a picnic", but this has nothing to do with what you actually believe.
It seems to me that there are only two possibilities, do you want to choose your beliefs, or do you want your beliefs to be true?, you can't have it both ways.
Excellent vid, and here is one more flaw of Pascal's wager: imagine you listen to someone making the case for Pascal's wager and you find it convincing. What do you do? The assumption seems to be that believing something is a matter of choice. But how could this be the case?
Assuming that:
a) Believing statement X means that you think it is true.
b) The truth or falsity of statement X does not depend on your choice
00:58-1:03: "Pascal's wager is not an argument for the existence of God, it's an argument for believing in the existence of God". Zinnia, are you a mind-reader? (or am I?) I made the exact same argument in a recent YT comment with the exact same words. Another possiblity worth considering is, of course, that there is this weird and wonderful world out there, that exists independently of our minds (aka "reality"), that we can somehow tap into (in short, wer're both reality-readers) to be cont.
4:16 and that is hillaius, they actually have "lazy christians" as the first group and one guy is wearing a jesus(cannot read the rest of it) t-shirt, and if he hates computer freaks he wants to be plunged back into the dark age before the camera needed to take the picture and the internet to share it even existed, because thats what would happen if there were no computer freaks(although i prefer the term "geek" because calling us freaks means that they think we are stupid, NO TECH SUPPORT 4 U!)
4:06 lol catholics are even there, gamblers(pascals wagor), liars(everyone lies at some point), racists, idolators(they use the cross as a representation), high fullutent, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS, jehovas witnesses and finally gangsters, that encompasses almost all christians, did they even read that sign? because they seem to have dug their own grave if they ARE correct...
1) Can people *choose* to believe? They can choose to *act* as though they believe, but wouldn't an omniscient deity see through that?
2) PW assumes there's only one possible "god"/religion to believe in--but mankind has worshipped many 1000s. How can you know that *yours* is the right/only one?
3) It's hardly true that "nothing's lost" in believing: time, money, FREEDOM are lost.
4) PW relies on *fear of pain*--a poor ad for a "loving god"!
Good video. But as an aside: I see that it seems to distinguish the Muslim "deity" from that of Jews and Christians. Wrong!
Muslims, Jews, and Xians all worship the same alleged "god." "Allah" is simply *Arabic* for "god" (actually: "the god"). Arabic-speaking Xians (there are millions) worship "Allah." Spanish-speaking Xians worship "Dios," but no one suggests that that's a different "god" than the one worshipped by English-speaking Xians!
@Freddyphelp What if hell is the place for everyone stupid enough to believe in the bible or the superiority of one belief/sexual preference over another?
Also, people this concerned with homosexuality, probably are just struggling to get that closet you've been hiding in for so long to open. Try the handle, brainiac!
I would say 'immoral'. A dogma that espouses that 'god' sends a skeptical, sweet and loving 9-year old to hell while, in theory, Adolf Hitler could have had a death bed conversion and be in Heaven is nothing short of anti-moral.
@LucisFerre1, By your comment, I really can't tell if you are religious or not. But I will say this, according to the Bible a 9 year old would still go to heaven because she isn't at the age of Accountability. Which is somehwere around the age of 18-25 years old.
i fucking threw up when i saw u. i showed my mom this retard transsexual fruitcake and she felt like crying. not for u of course, but for your parents. just please kill yourself btw my sister says u look like meg griffin
I believe Blaise Pascal in "Penses" was interested in showing how belief in God was logical. The idea was to have the individual search out for the proper "God" of their choosing. It was not to turn people "Christian." Dedicating your life to being a Biblical Christian should be a life of helping people and loving all around you. The Bible declares we ought to be humanitarian, ecological, social, economical, and scientific. In doing this, how would your life be any worse than that of unbelief?
@PastorMcPherson "In doing this, how would your life be any worse than that of unbelief?" Because you would be accepting things on faith alone. And the second you allow that to happen, the sky is the limit - and not in a good way.
If you take claim X as true on faith alone... what will stop you from also baselessly believing Y and Z?
@PastorMcPherson The Bible also declares that it's perfectly fine to kill your neighbor should you discover them laboring on the Sabbath. In 1 Samuel 15:3, God tells Amalek to kill men, women, children and infants. Oh, and a number of animals.
@PastorMcPherson belched "Dedicating your life to being a Biblical Christian should be a life of helping people and loving all around you." I can easily rid myself of the Fantasy found in your Bible while helping and loving people around me, Christians don't have a monopoly on "love" and "helping" *rolls eyes* but hey it's okay, you're not here to be honest, you're here to convert and you think you have to be dishonest to do it. Keep posting, it only reinforces your foolishness.
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
So tell me. who do you think is going to be judged the better 'soul' in front of your God, A person truthfully telling him(God) that he didn't believe in him because there wasn't enough proof, or the person who sits in front of him(God) and says he only believed so he wouldn't go to Hell? I think your God will pick me over you and your 'just in case' philosophy. I'm not living a 'bet' (Pascal's Wager).
@mechanicmike69 see the problem with many of you atheists is that you just keep attacking straw men. Pascal's wager has a context - it is an argument for those who are seriously torn between belief in a 'theistic' god who DOES care about whether you believe in him or not, or not believing in god at all.
Against that background the argument makes perfect sense.
if you don't think it makes sense then you must be very poor, becasue you must make really stupid financial decisions all the time
@Clear404 "pascal's wager has a context" really? No kidding? now you fucking understand why it's totally illogical and is not a defense of anything. So why do religious idiots (Christians are in this group) use it as a reason to believe in their superstitions and myths? You are a delusional fucking moron, your god does not exist and you have offered nothing to change that fact.
@mechanicmike69 I have actually read Pascal, and you haven't. You have a half-baked view about his argument but can't be bothered to take the time to properly understand it. I'm not about to give you a fucking tutorial on it either. Go and read the original or read something on a respectable internet site about it.
The argument is respectable and is discussed to this day. Arguments like that can't be dismissed by thickies like you. Remember - you're thick. That's today's lesson.
@Clear404 Pascals wager is bullshit. always was and always will be. What if you picked the wrong god? the wrong religion? the wrong interpretation? You are the dense and ignorant moron, you are the one that believes bronze age myths are true. You literally have NOTHING, your god is make believe.
@Clear404 Oh by the way, you presumptuous assuming asshole, you do not know if I have or have not read Pascal. Why don't you read the bible again for the 'first time' it's the best tool an atheist has, all it takes is some intelligence and reasoning skills and the bible does the rest, makes another atheist. It's so patently absurd it would take a complete moron, or brainwashing a youngster to get anyone to believe the crap in there.
@mechanicmike69 No, Mikely-cunt, you're the presumptuous one. I'm not a christian. I don't give a flying fuck what the bible says about anything. I'm not religious. I'm a deist. Pay attention, you twat.
@Clear404 Your god is still non-existent, you typed nothing to change that fact. Your god just like the one in the bible came from ancient primitive primates as they tried to explain what they didn't understand, they didn't understand much. Now you pay attention, your point, as usual, is MOOT. You in effect said nothing. If you believe in god you are religious, you ignorant moron, Gods is religion, but religion doesn't need god (Buddhists). You are fucked in the head.
So anyway, I think you've basically attacked a straw man. Pascal was not stupid and his argument was addressed to a specific audience and second, he did not at any point assume that you could just 'choose' to believe in god. Rather, you see that it is rational to cultivate a belief in god and you try and cultivate that belief. Whether you're successful or not is another mattter - it is rational to try.
Second, arguments have audiences and Pascal's argument is addressed to someone who is genuinely conflicted about whether to give assent to believe in a broadly theistic god or not.
Many people just don't aknowledge this and think the argument is directed to anybody and everybody. No, certain assumptions have been made.
Once those assumptions have been made, the argument is a corker. How on earth can it be rational to take an avoidable risk when there is no upside to taking it?
I think Pascal's wager is one of the best arguments for belief in god and I don't find your criticisms convincing.
First, Pascal addresses your first concern quite explicitly. you can't just 'decide' to believe in god on the basis of pascal's argument. What you do is first recognise that it is rational to believe in god (that it is in your interests). Then you try and cultivate GENUINE belief by, say, going to church and hanging around religious types. It might work, it might not.
A answer to pascals wager is: if you are wrong you have set up memes and standards of atheism upon the Earth. It would be too late for the atheist to change their mind, but the consequences are not that they would "happily burn in hell" rather than go to heaven with a tyrant, but that they have sewn falsehood on the Earth for generations upon generations.
That is the answer IF the atheist is wrong, think about that (I said IF)
You'll know when you take your last breath whether you were right or not. I'd not bet against it there being NO GOD! Seems like allot of comments here have a belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion" Science definetly proved allot of the biblical accounts happened. I just see allot of ignorance in the comments. Nothing to lose all to gain.
@AcaiBliss "belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion""
Woah woah woah, hang on, did you just bring science into this? This isn't science, this is logic, my friend. What ZJ was saying here was if you use Pascal's Wager as reason to believe in the Christian diety, then you might as well believe in Allah. This is logically sound. Your argument is not.
You'll know when you take your last breath whether you were right or not. I'd not bet against it there being NO GOD! Seems like allot of comments here have a belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion" Science definetly proved allot of the biblical accounts happened. I just see allot of ignorance in the comments.
To die believing in Christ is to gain. For whosoever seeks to save his/her life will lose it, but whosoever seeks to lose their life will gain it. Other gods promise nothing that isn't just temporary. Same thing with magic, sorcery, and other such "gifts" of the gods. I would rather do without on earth and enter Heaven as a coward than have everything on earth, with no reward stored in Heaven, braving the flames of hell, of which btw wasn't mentioned in Pascals wager.
Hmm you, I'm a christian obviously, but I agree with the fop on this one, that is a really stupid way to believe in god. ok, so beleive he exists, so that way the odds are in your favor incase you are right or wrong.
Btw, our oldest fossil is of bacteria, and it is about 3.5 billion years old, our planet is just over 4.5 billion years old. The planet was not capable of supporting life for several hundred million years after its creation. That means life started almost the instant it was capable of starting, so no matter how high the odds are (which are usually astronomically low) there was NO TIME for nature to work itself out. PS Live was not created in 6 literal days.
Saying god doesn't exist over and over and over again doesn't make it a reality. And a guy in a dress telling me so is less convincing. You would actualy say that beleiving in the right god is mathematicaly unrealistic, but the universe's creation, and the 1 of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion chance of all 250 protiens neccessary for the most primitive of life to align on their own, IS realistic? good luck. :{P
@MagnusCattus That's a false probability construction because the connection between atoms to form molecules is not random. So you cannot build probabilities that way...
- no, but the fact there isnt any evidence of a god means it's probably an accurate statement of reality.
"And a guy in a dress telling me so is less convincing"
- ad hom
"say that beleiving in the right god is mathematicaly..."
- the two are not analogous in one instance your talking about something you merely assert to have happened (for which there is no evidence) and the other is something that did happen but has an unknown cause
There are tens of thousands of religions and denominations in the world, but let's assume there are only 10,000. In that case, the chance of one believing in the right god is 0.01% So no matter which god you believe in, there's a overwhelming chance that you will burn in hell anyway. So why not just come to your senses and realize that all religions are false (hell doesn't exist)? You will free yourself. I promise.
This is a good summary of the many problems with Pascal's wager. I think the fact that it does not consider several religions vitiates the entire logic, and no other argument is necessary. I actually think the brilliant Pascal was joking when he wrote the wager.
@Trucidofy The filter is being administrated by a non-profit organisation, and there has been instances of fully legal websites being allocated to the filter; Sort of disturbing the free market there, but thats not the worst part, as a few years after it was created, a judgement against thepiratebay for illegally sharing copyrighted files landed them into the filter and since then many other filesharing websites has ended up in what was promised to only be a filter for child pornography
@Trucidofy An example of how laws with good intentions can go down a slippery slope, some years ago, here in Denmark where I live, where censorship is supposed to be illegal, a law was passed to block internet websites containing child pornography from being accessable for internet users in this country.
Those of us who opposed it back then was said to be supporting child pornography, while our concern was the limitations of freedom and slippery slope it could potentially lead to
@Trucidofy Im well aware it is with good intentions you want to limit the free speech, but most people who makes laws which damage the populations freedoms do have good intentions, but does not see the far reaching consequences of their actions, at least, I belive that is the case, I cannot demonstrate that, I will admit.
By anyone having to deem a law "insane" before it can spoken out against, you are limiting progress and potentially allowing a slippery slope towards oppression.
@Trucidofy As I did not say "your argument is this" and say something it wasn't, I was not strawmanning you; To do that, I would have to say that you was saying something which you wasn't. I simply demonstrated your logic to be flawed.
I think it is problematic you say that you are not against free speech it if is against an insane law; Who is to be the judge of which laws are "insane" and which are not?
By limiting free speech in any way, you opening the doors for oppression
@Trucidofy Well, not really a strawman, as I said the argument structure was the same at the structure I used, not that the situation was the same; The only reason you said that Free Speech was not worth such a stance was because we did not have fully free speech now, but that says nothing about whatever or not it is worth taking a stance for free speech, it is merely pointing out there are other areas where we should take a stance for free speech
@Trucidofy Oh, forgot the last part: Gun ownership is severely restricted where I live and I think it is idiocy of the highest order that there is no more gun control in the states.
Gun ownership is rare here, it is only those who practice sports, are into hunting or who works for the militaries civil defense system, who has weapons in their homes, besides some criminals, of course.
Gun ownership is one of the hardest things to attain legally where I live
@Trucidofy I got to give you a thumbs down, while I agree with many things you say, I very strongly oppose your last point, that free speech should be limited for those are are against homosexuality: Sure, we can agree that those who are against something natural like homosexuality are misinformed, stupid or got problems with their own sexuality, or a combination of those, or other bad things.
But limiting free speech in any instance is simply wrong; Free speech with limits is not free speech
I cannot take anything you say seriously while wearing that feather scarf and terrible sunglasses, aren't the gays supposed to have a sense of fashion. You look like Manson's ugly sister.
Since my comments here two months ago, I have changed religions. I am no longer Christian. I'm now Muslim. I invite all the people I previously debated with to join me again in discussing our different views. I will squash all of you in debate. Allah is on my side. Allahu akbar!
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what humans do.
Honestly, when I went to church when I was little, that was why. I was told if I didn't believe in god I'd go to hell. So I prayed and went to church with my family so that if there was one, I wouldn't. It didn't mean I believed, just that I didn't want the possibility of hell to be true.
Now I believe, if God was going to send me to hell, they aren't one I would want to worship anyway.
If you believe I'm God, and it turns out you're wrong, you lose nothing. But, if you're right, and you worship me and give me gifts, you gain everything. But, if you DON'T believe, and I send you to an eternity of firey torture, well.... I guess you should put your money on the fact I'm God. It's just safer.
@ronmac05ad If you think that arguement holds up then go for it. You are definitely an unwise fool to some extent. Or perhaps you are just really stubborn. No wait... you KNOW god isn't real. Gro up bitch, my dicks bigger.
@martiandog89 You're the fool & you're a dick head & yes god is NOT real. Grow up, boogeyman god, zombie jesus, & pink unicorn don't exist in reality only in your delusional christ psychotic mind.
@ronmac05ad btw i only said something to you because you are stupid for thinking pascal's wager has been trashed. You are simply saying it is.. and betting we will discover matter and energies origins. You need to learn more about science and at least realize u have not proven religion wrong. im not offended by your beliefs, just your logic.
@martiandog89 You're stupid, science disproved religion many times e.g. bible & god said cure for leprosy is through sprinkling of blood of bird, quran & allah said cure for disease is through wing of a fly.
BTW we atheists have no beliefs on anything that is not Verifiable through Observation, Demonstration & Testing & this is how reality & scientific logic works!
Answer me something: What good does the homosexual act bring to the human species? If you were to place all gays on a deserted island, they would die within one generation. their ONLY hope for survival would be to......sleep with someone of the opposite sex! Even creating life, humans cannot do. Not all sexual acts lead to pregnancy. Make life out of carbon and atoms, or body parts, like Dr. Frankenstein? Hollywood fantasy. Another proof of the existence of God. Anything else is fantasy...
@moopism That's a good that the "person" does. I was referring to the acts. Fashion entails a working of the mind and it's creativity, not the genitals. As far as population, you do know that most of Europe is experiencing a demographic winter. So it is with Japan, so far that they were PAYING ppl to have more children, and now they were hit with an earthquake. The only thing that is keeping the USA alive is immigration. If I lie, then you've never been asked to press 2 "for Spanish", huh?
@xcolompapi So why is reducing the population a bad thing?
Also, what was that,"If I lie, then you've never been asked to press 2 "for Spanish", huh?" supposed to mean? That homosexuality is evil because white folks don't breed enough and now all we have are inferior brown models?
There's a whole lot of ugly sentiment underlying that.
@moopism "...now all we have are inferior brown models?" I'M HISPANIC, moron! What is THAT supposed to mean??? INFERIOR??? White ppl are not inferior to us, nor do I feel superior or "cooler" cuz I'm hispanic....I don't need to flaunt my ethnicity, to come out on top or get my way...I use my brain. I suggest U do the same, cuz ur making white ppl look real stupid right now...no, wait...I know plenty of smart white ppl....I guess it's only u. Way to stand out....
@xcolompapi You're the one that made the reference to pressing 2 for spanish.... I merely called you for how that reads, if you didn't mean it to be racist or homophobic, then explain that.
@moopism I meant that you don't see the population decline in the US because of immigration, but you were too slow to grasp that, and grabbed on to my words and behind the race card like a lib knows how to do...It took me 5 months to respond, not to comprehend, you fool...U still don't get it do u?
@moopism U'd love that, wouldn't U, homo? I don't hate nor do I "fear" gays....don't get your panties in a bunch, trying to slander and make me look hateful, just to buy some sad credibility to your weak arguments...not everyone is slow like you...the only nutsack u have is the one in ur mouth...
@xcolompapi said, [[" trying to slander and make me look hateful, just to buy some sad credibility to your weak arguments...not everyone is slow like you...the only nutsack u have is the one in ur mouth..."]]
Yes, of course you're not hateful. After all, you said much the same thing to your mother just the other day. BTW, remind her that I want my nutsack back please.
....Now if God does "not exist", a non-existent, why do you argue it, and what does it matter to you? Either one of two: Belief matters to you, or there might be doubts in you.....If you say He doesn't exist, very simple, prove to me there is no God.
@xcolompapi Why do we argue against god? Because we're living in a world where a large population of people want to make rules based on their superstition, and enforce their belief on others. Also; you're the one saying 'god exists', the burdan of proof lies on you making the claim - atheists simply say they do not believe in god, or that since no credible evidence has been presented, no god exists. You have the burden of proof to back up your claim; no matter how much you want to turn it around
@xcolompapi "...Now if God does "not exist", a non-existent, why do you argue it, and what does it matter to you?"
Because jackoffs like you insist on legislating your superstitious "morality" on others. In the here and now, y'all can't resist trying to force theocracy on us.
@moopism If that is the case, why do you cry when Christmas comes around? It's not killing you is it? If at the workplace, when Sunday and other religious holidays come around, I assume you fight also to make it a working day, huh? It seems most are pretty comfortable with having Sunday off and a PAID holiday. Do you give the money back? I'd say you're very comfortable with Religion then, or what it does for you economically at least.
I don't think you quite understand. You claim that ppl fail or are uneducated because they don't see it your way. Basic principle of "cause and effect" explains the existence of God. Even atheists live by their"faith and dogma". You know not about religion. How can you talk of something you don't know? I assure you did not research, but rather base it on defending your lifestyle in the most puerile of ways. Basically you don't argue a non-existent, like the Tooth fairy, unless your a child....
@rynther Car bombs? That would be radical Muslims, or ANY Radical. That does not make ALL religions the same. That makes your statement bigotted and very ignorant. Almost as idiotic as saying all blacks are "thieves and drug dealers". As far as faith: I believe I have a brain because I believe that which I have not seen. You say you only believe what you see. You have never seen your brain, as I have not either. Based on your "dogma" We can conclude that you have no brain then huh?
pascals wager is a fine idea, and it doesn’t have to be your central pillar of faith, but pretentiously dismissing it like this just makes you a bigot. it’s actually fine and perfectly acceptable to have other views than yours, zinnia
Its SO CRAZY that God is so completely against lying, deception, and being a false witness/not an eyewitness to an account of something, to the point of throwing people into an eternal hell for these things. Yet at the same time this God expects us to accept things like the bible by faith, that cannot be proven IN ANY WAY! How can this possibly be moral of us? Especially with all the horrible things in the bible!
Pascals wager is a philosophy that promotes the value: that this life we are all living right now is not worth living the way we see fit because of the possibility of an unprovable God. Don't be so intimidated of the reality of death people! Rather be intimidated of not living well!
I couldn't agree more. The are many religious people who are not moral. And there are many non believers who are very moral. You totally blew that argument out the window. P.S looking kinda swish in this new video, although I am whiling to wager that this is not your actual Identity. You may well just be doing a Zaphod Beeblebrox and distracting us with a pretty identity while the real intelligence is produce by people a little less easy on the eye.
This is all based upon the assumption that after death there is some form of life. A point when one gains knowledge that one did not have before death. Which, is totally and fully unsupportable. The only life you can be sure of is the one you have, and you should live it as positively and as responsibly as you possibly can.
@ZJemptv your argument is somewhat flawed. If one does believe in a god, but is wrong, and when we die we cease to exist, then one wouldn't be around to give a flying fuck about being wrong.
I half agree with another part of your argument - it's not all about what you believe. It's what you do, more than anything. The people who say it's all about believing are, quite frankly, wrong. I'll send you a message explaining this, as i am running out of space in this comment.
There's one problem with her argument against Pascal's Wager. If nothing happens after we die, that means we cease to exist, therefore we wouldn't be around to give a flying fuck about whether we were right or wrong. QED.
When the picture of Pat Robertson was flashed on the screen, I stood up and shouted, "That son-of-a-bitch!" This is what I do every time I see his face. I'm fairly sure I have Pat Robertson Tourrette's syndrome.
Pascal's Wager is actually pretty effective, but only if you're using it to keep people who were already Christian from losing their faith. That's what I struggled most with, back when I was a stupid teenager. It actually took me about four more years to completely lose my faith, because of this fucking thing XP
@YouMadButISwag I had faith in God, because I did not base my belief in Him on evidence. Years later, I realized how stupid that was, so I decided not to have faith in God anymore. What would you call that, besides losing my faith?
@YouMadButISwag I had faith because I did not look at the evidence, because I didn't care. I wanted to believe, and nothing was going to stop me. When I became old enough, once my parents had told me there was no Santa Clause, once I learned that people lied and that I should use my own discretion to question the things people told me, I realized that God didn't add up. So I lost my faith. It had nothing to do with being convinced, it had everything to do with my own deduction.
@YouMadButISwag Santa showed me that anyone, even my parents, are capable of lying to me, so I began to ask questions about my own beliefs shortly after. The first, I think, was, `why did God send all the pre-Columbian Native Americans to hell, if none of them had ever had any hope of hearing anything about him? That seemed incredibly unfair to me.
I can't watch the videos now, I will when I get home.
@DarthFennec They are in their grave awaiting the great resurrection. Hades = place of the dead. Hades is divided in two: 'paradise' and 'the lost'. After the death of Jesus, He descended to HADES and took the occupants of 'paradise' up with him to heaven. The lost side of hades has remained unchanged. All of the lost go there & await final judgment
Hades is temporary, where souls are kept as they wait final resurrection. HELL is a future realm after judgment day where it is eternal torment.
@YouMadButISwag Are those who did not believe when they died destined for Hell? From what I've been taught, if you fuck up in this life, you can't change your mind after you die. What denomination are you? Also, I don't remember anywhere in the Bible that says that, can you point out a verse?
That's not the only problem I have with Christianity, it was just the first of many. I have thousands of questions like that, now.
@YouMadButISwag Okay, that basically tells me God will send you to hell, even if you've never heard of him. That's really fucking unfair, no loving god would do that, and in that case, I hold my position. The website tries to butter up the situation by explaining that `god presents himself in nature,' but whether he does or not is not the point. You go to heaven if you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins, not if you believe God exists. Jesus dying on a cross is not shown in nature.
@DarthFennec It is foolish to debate the fairness of God sending someone to hell who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ. People are responsible to God for what God has already revealed to them. The Bible says that people reject this knowledge, and therefore God is just in condemning them to hell. People had heard about a coming Messiah (Jesus) hundreds and hundreds of years before He came. If they truly wanted to know, they could find out. But, "no one seeks for God."
@YouMadButISwag You're being blind, like most theists. It doesn't matter what the bible says about any `God has revealed himself' bullshit. The fact remains that if Christianity is assumed to be correct, that means to believe in the coming of the Messiah is to go to heaven, and to not is to live in eternal torment. The Mayans had absolutely no possible way of knowing anything about any messiah being killed across the fucking ocean. Therefore, your god is unfair and does not deserve my worship.
@DarthFennec Read my other comment, but the question you are asking is too deep for me to answer. But I do know that the people on the 'paradise' side of Hades (I don't know how exactly they got to the paradise side) were taken by Jesus up to heaven, because Jesus saw that in their hearts they were worthy.
So maybe some Mayans were worthy? I have no idea, because I've never been to Hades. But if you believe God doesn't deserve your worship, that is certainly your own affair.
@DarthFennec The Spaniards tried to convert the Mayans (and Aztecs, ect) to Christianity. So yeah, for your example, they had a possible way of knowing. They rejected it, though.
the ATHEIST'S WAGER owns pascal's wager.
punishalltrolls 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everybody! Repost this comment onto five videos, or a clown will pop out of your closet and stab you!
See, if you do repost it, and there is no clown, you don't lose anything, but if you don't and there is, you're going to get stabbed!
So repost it! Quick! D:
Jobbeybob 2 weeks ago
2:00 you mean the catholic god.
Pascal was a catholic. So funny how people use this for other gods, I bet Pascal is rolling in his grave.
faceshed 2 weeks ago
It obvioiusly follows that your belief in statement X is not a matter of choice..
Of course, you can pretend to believe it: If there is a snowstorm raging outside, you can say "what a beautiful weather, let's go out to have a picnic", but this has nothing to do with what you actually believe.
It seems to me that there are only two possibilities, do you want to choose your beliefs, or do you want your beliefs to be true?, you can't have it both ways.
FomalhautBeer 1 month ago 2
Excellent vid, and here is one more flaw of Pascal's wager: imagine you listen to someone making the case for Pascal's wager and you find it convincing. What do you do? The assumption seems to be that believing something is a matter of choice. But how could this be the case?
Assuming that:
a) Believing statement X means that you think it is true.
b) The truth or falsity of statement X does not depend on your choice
... to be continued....
FomalhautBeer 1 month ago
00:58-1:03: "Pascal's wager is not an argument for the existence of God, it's an argument for believing in the existence of God". Zinnia, are you a mind-reader? (or am I?) I made the exact same argument in a recent YT comment with the exact same words. Another possiblity worth considering is, of course, that there is this weird and wonderful world out there, that exists independently of our minds (aka "reality"), that we can somehow tap into (in short, wer're both reality-readers) to be cont.
FomalhautBeer 1 month ago
4:16 and that is hillaius, they actually have "lazy christians" as the first group and one guy is wearing a jesus(cannot read the rest of it) t-shirt, and if he hates computer freaks he wants to be plunged back into the dark age before the camera needed to take the picture and the internet to share it even existed, because thats what would happen if there were no computer freaks(although i prefer the term "geek" because calling us freaks means that they think we are stupid, NO TECH SUPPORT 4 U!)
doombybbr 1 month ago
4:06 lol catholics are even there, gamblers(pascals wagor), liars(everyone lies at some point), racists, idolators(they use the cross as a representation), high fullutent, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS, jehovas witnesses and finally gangsters, that encompasses almost all christians, did they even read that sign? because they seem to have dug their own grave if they ARE correct...
doombybbr 1 month ago
they also forgot the possibility that scince the christian god is so immoral, there is no garrantee of anything...
doombybbr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Refuting Pascal's Wager (PW)--SparkNotes version:
1) Can people *choose* to believe? They can choose to *act* as though they believe, but wouldn't an omniscient deity see through that?
2) PW assumes there's only one possible "god"/religion to believe in--but mankind has worshipped many 1000s. How can you know that *yours* is the right/only one?
3) It's hardly true that "nothing's lost" in believing: time, money, FREEDOM are lost.
4) PW relies on *fear of pain*--a poor ad for a "loving god"!
lease2coach1 1 month ago
Very very good work!
BiggerThinking1 1 month ago
i <3 ur outfit!
peatmosslover 1 month ago
A man in a feather boa just had me glued to the screen and saying "Yes!" for over five minutes. Does that make me gay?
thalohalo 1 month ago
@thalohalo No, but it makes you smarter.
Iemanonymous1 1 month ago
You look awesome here, Zinny!
Graymoths 1 month ago
Good video. But as an aside: I see that it seems to distinguish the Muslim "deity" from that of Jews and Christians. Wrong!
Muslims, Jews, and Xians all worship the same alleged "god." "Allah" is simply *Arabic* for "god" (actually: "the god"). Arabic-speaking Xians (there are millions) worship "Allah." Spanish-speaking Xians worship "Dios," but no one suggests that that's a different "god" than the one worshipped by English-speaking Xians!
Different languages; same fictitious character.
lease2coach1 1 month ago
You're really smart and rational. If a person's only thing they have to say about you is "why is he wearing a boa?" or "are you a he or a she"
well they can go fuck themselves i suppose.
TanaCooker 1 month ago
you speak like electronic dictionary o-O
TheSleepyFairy 1 month ago
We should go out, but I think you live too far away.
netminderxp 2 months ago
Ozzy Osborne is Back
Howbigofaboyareya 2 months ago
Drag Queen? or tranny?
TheShirlock 2 months ago
@TheShirlock Relevance?
AernoutMJC 2 months ago
Discount Pascals wager all you want but in the end you will be BURNING IN HELL WITH THE REST OF THE FAGS AND FAG ENABLERS.
Freddyphelp 2 months ago
@Freddyphelp What if hell is the place for everyone stupid enough to believe in the bible or the superiority of one belief/sexual preference over another?
Also, people this concerned with homosexuality, probably are just struggling to get that closet you've been hiding in for so long to open. Try the handle, brainiac!
AernoutMJC 2 months ago
"How thoroughly distasteful".
I would say 'immoral'. A dogma that espouses that 'god' sends a skeptical, sweet and loving 9-year old to hell while, in theory, Adolf Hitler could have had a death bed conversion and be in Heaven is nothing short of anti-moral.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@LucisFerre1, By your comment, I really can't tell if you are religious or not. But I will say this, according to the Bible a 9 year old would still go to heaven because she isn't at the age of Accountability. Which is somehwere around the age of 18-25 years old.
1Morey 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i fucking threw up when i saw u. i showed my mom this retard transsexual fruitcake and she felt like crying. not for u of course, but for your parents. just please kill yourself btw my sister says u look like meg griffin
mcownagedapwnage 3 months ago
I love you. And your boa.
hollyhousekitchen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hollyhousekitchen said [["I love you. And your boa."]]
I'm partial to rattle snakes myself.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
hey
hackrcam 3 months ago
I believe Blaise Pascal in "Penses" was interested in showing how belief in God was logical. The idea was to have the individual search out for the proper "God" of their choosing. It was not to turn people "Christian." Dedicating your life to being a Biblical Christian should be a life of helping people and loving all around you. The Bible declares we ought to be humanitarian, ecological, social, economical, and scientific. In doing this, how would your life be any worse than that of unbelief?
PastorMcPherson 4 months ago
@PastorMcPherson "In doing this, how would your life be any worse than that of unbelief?" Because you would be accepting things on faith alone. And the second you allow that to happen, the sky is the limit - and not in a good way.
If you take claim X as true on faith alone... what will stop you from also baselessly believing Y and Z?
X might be harmless, but Y and Z might not be.
Also, christian doctrine is despicable.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@PastorMcPherson The Bible also declares that it's perfectly fine to kill your neighbor should you discover them laboring on the Sabbath. In 1 Samuel 15:3, God tells Amalek to kill men, women, children and infants. Oh, and a number of animals.
jont43 3 months ago
@PastorMcPherson belched "Dedicating your life to being a Biblical Christian should be a life of helping people and loving all around you." I can easily rid myself of the Fantasy found in your Bible while helping and loving people around me, Christians don't have a monopoly on "love" and "helping" *rolls eyes* but hey it's okay, you're not here to be honest, you're here to convert and you think you have to be dishonest to do it. Keep posting, it only reinforces your foolishness.
whanethewhip 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
Herrkake 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the fuck are you???
TheAmericanDefender 4 months ago
So tell me. who do you think is going to be judged the better 'soul' in front of your God, A person truthfully telling him(God) that he didn't believe in him because there wasn't enough proof, or the person who sits in front of him(God) and says he only believed so he wouldn't go to Hell? I think your God will pick me over you and your 'just in case' philosophy. I'm not living a 'bet' (Pascal's Wager).
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
@mechanicmike69 see the problem with many of you atheists is that you just keep attacking straw men. Pascal's wager has a context - it is an argument for those who are seriously torn between belief in a 'theistic' god who DOES care about whether you believe in him or not, or not believing in god at all.
Against that background the argument makes perfect sense.
if you don't think it makes sense then you must be very poor, becasue you must make really stupid financial decisions all the time
Clear404 4 months ago
@Clear404 "pascal's wager has a context" really? No kidding? now you fucking understand why it's totally illogical and is not a defense of anything. So why do religious idiots (Christians are in this group) use it as a reason to believe in their superstitions and myths? You are a delusional fucking moron, your god does not exist and you have offered nothing to change that fact.
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
@mechanicmike69 I have actually read Pascal, and you haven't. You have a half-baked view about his argument but can't be bothered to take the time to properly understand it. I'm not about to give you a fucking tutorial on it either. Go and read the original or read something on a respectable internet site about it.
The argument is respectable and is discussed to this day. Arguments like that can't be dismissed by thickies like you. Remember - you're thick. That's today's lesson.
Clear404 4 months ago
@Clear404 Pascals wager is bullshit. always was and always will be. What if you picked the wrong god? the wrong religion? the wrong interpretation? You are the dense and ignorant moron, you are the one that believes bronze age myths are true. You literally have NOTHING, your god is make believe.
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
@Clear404 Oh by the way, you presumptuous assuming asshole, you do not know if I have or have not read Pascal. Why don't you read the bible again for the 'first time' it's the best tool an atheist has, all it takes is some intelligence and reasoning skills and the bible does the rest, makes another atheist. It's so patently absurd it would take a complete moron, or brainwashing a youngster to get anyone to believe the crap in there.
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
@mechanicmike69 No, Mikely-cunt, you're the presumptuous one. I'm not a christian. I don't give a flying fuck what the bible says about anything. I'm not religious. I'm a deist. Pay attention, you twat.
Clear404 4 months ago
@Clear404 Your god is still non-existent, you typed nothing to change that fact. Your god just like the one in the bible came from ancient primitive primates as they tried to explain what they didn't understand, they didn't understand much. Now you pay attention, your point, as usual, is MOOT. You in effect said nothing. If you believe in god you are religious, you ignorant moron, Gods is religion, but religion doesn't need god (Buddhists). You are fucked in the head.
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
Comment removed
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Transexual women have pee stains on the front of their panties because... Well... They have Dicks.
PeaceLoveMichy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So anyway, I think you've basically attacked a straw man. Pascal was not stupid and his argument was addressed to a specific audience and second, he did not at any point assume that you could just 'choose' to believe in god. Rather, you see that it is rational to cultivate a belief in god and you try and cultivate that belief. Whether you're successful or not is another mattter - it is rational to try.
Clear404 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Second, arguments have audiences and Pascal's argument is addressed to someone who is genuinely conflicted about whether to give assent to believe in a broadly theistic god or not.
Many people just don't aknowledge this and think the argument is directed to anybody and everybody. No, certain assumptions have been made.
Once those assumptions have been made, the argument is a corker. How on earth can it be rational to take an avoidable risk when there is no upside to taking it?
Clear404 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Pascal's wager is one of the best arguments for belief in god and I don't find your criticisms convincing.
First, Pascal addresses your first concern quite explicitly. you can't just 'decide' to believe in god on the basis of pascal's argument. What you do is first recognise that it is rational to believe in god (that it is in your interests). Then you try and cultivate GENUINE belief by, say, going to church and hanging around religious types. It might work, it might not.
Clear404 4 months ago
I love the background music in this video. >__<
Anyone happen to know the song???
Spr1teRoses 4 months ago
A answer to pascals wager is: if you are wrong you have set up memes and standards of atheism upon the Earth. It would be too late for the atheist to change their mind, but the consequences are not that they would "happily burn in hell" rather than go to heaven with a tyrant, but that they have sewn falsehood on the Earth for generations upon generations.
That is the answer IF the atheist is wrong, think about that (I said IF)
Phavonic 4 months ago
@Trucidofy Basically communism
Phavonic 4 months ago
Basically we are all screwed; what do you expect we are the product of a pair of people fucking around.
ttopperr 4 months ago
@Trucidofy
>Atheist
>would give deathpenalty [sic]
This is saddening. Your kind does not belong in a civil country. Go back to North Korea.
Curbytime 5 months ago
You'll know when you take your last breath whether you were right or not. I'd not bet against it there being NO GOD! Seems like allot of comments here have a belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion" Science definetly proved allot of the biblical accounts happened. I just see allot of ignorance in the comments. Nothing to lose all to gain.
AcaiBliss 5 months ago
@AcaiBliss "belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion""
Woah woah woah, hang on, did you just bring science into this? This isn't science, this is logic, my friend. What ZJ was saying here was if you use Pascal's Wager as reason to believe in the Christian diety, then you might as well believe in Allah. This is logically sound. Your argument is not.
pythor2 5 months ago
You'll know when you take your last breath whether you were right or not. I'd not bet against it there being NO GOD! Seems like allot of comments here have a belief but no sound information. Science did not disprove "religion" Science definetly proved allot of the biblical accounts happened. I just see allot of ignorance in the comments.
AcaiBliss 5 months ago
@Trucidofy I don't belive in atheists. you'll know when you take your last breath whether you were right or not.
AcaiBliss 5 months ago
Pascal's wager is not a "religious argument". Come on, now. You know better.
SuperSam424 5 months ago
To die believing in Christ is to gain. For whosoever seeks to save his/her life will lose it, but whosoever seeks to lose their life will gain it. Other gods promise nothing that isn't just temporary. Same thing with magic, sorcery, and other such "gifts" of the gods. I would rather do without on earth and enter Heaven as a coward than have everything on earth, with no reward stored in Heaven, braving the flames of hell, of which btw wasn't mentioned in Pascals wager.
OldUgly 5 months ago
Hmm you, I'm a christian obviously, but I agree with the fop on this one, that is a really stupid way to believe in god. ok, so beleive he exists, so that way the odds are in your favor incase you are right or wrong.
MagnusCattus 6 months ago
Btw, our oldest fossil is of bacteria, and it is about 3.5 billion years old, our planet is just over 4.5 billion years old. The planet was not capable of supporting life for several hundred million years after its creation. That means life started almost the instant it was capable of starting, so no matter how high the odds are (which are usually astronomically low) there was NO TIME for nature to work itself out. PS Live was not created in 6 literal days.
Checkmate douche
MagnusCattus 6 months ago
Saying god doesn't exist over and over and over again doesn't make it a reality. And a guy in a dress telling me so is less convincing. You would actualy say that beleiving in the right god is mathematicaly unrealistic, but the universe's creation, and the 1 of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion chance of all 250 protiens neccessary for the most primitive of life to align on their own, IS realistic? good luck. :{P
MagnusCattus 6 months ago
@MagnusCattus That's a false probability construction because the connection between atoms to form molecules is not random. So you cannot build probabilities that way...
balhoto 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusCattus
"Saying god doesn't exist..."
- no, but the fact there isnt any evidence of a god means it's probably an accurate statement of reality.
"And a guy in a dress telling me so is less convincing"
- ad hom
"say that beleiving in the right god is mathematicaly..."
- the two are not analogous in one instance your talking about something you merely assert to have happened (for which there is no evidence) and the other is something that did happen but has an unknown cause
types10000 4 months ago
@MagnusCattus That is called being scientifically ignorant.
sailornaruto39 4 months ago
There are tens of thousands of religions and denominations in the world, but let's assume there are only 10,000. In that case, the chance of one believing in the right god is 0.01% So no matter which god you believe in, there's a overwhelming chance that you will burn in hell anyway. So why not just come to your senses and realize that all religions are false (hell doesn't exist)? You will free yourself. I promise.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
SAAisar 7 months ago
@SAAisar And that's a very healthy way of having an imaginary friend.
balhoto 5 months ago
This is a good summary of the many problems with Pascal's wager. I think the fact that it does not consider several religions vitiates the entire logic, and no other argument is necessary. I actually think the brilliant Pascal was joking when he wrote the wager.
vattensvin 7 months ago
@fuck192ass And your handle is fuck192ass....
....
OjLeno 7 months ago
@OjLeno
women have asses too, btw, although people with handles like "fuck192ass" are usually trolls.
Kojitsu 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fuck192ass I know right! I love her style, and her reasoning.
Smischmal 7 months ago
@Trucidofy The filter is being administrated by a non-profit organisation, and there has been instances of fully legal websites being allocated to the filter; Sort of disturbing the free market there, but thats not the worst part, as a few years after it was created, a judgement against thepiratebay for illegally sharing copyrighted files landed them into the filter and since then many other filesharing websites has ended up in what was promised to only be a filter for child pornography
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy An example of how laws with good intentions can go down a slippery slope, some years ago, here in Denmark where I live, where censorship is supposed to be illegal, a law was passed to block internet websites containing child pornography from being accessable for internet users in this country.
Those of us who opposed it back then was said to be supporting child pornography, while our concern was the limitations of freedom and slippery slope it could potentially lead to
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy Im well aware it is with good intentions you want to limit the free speech, but most people who makes laws which damage the populations freedoms do have good intentions, but does not see the far reaching consequences of their actions, at least, I belive that is the case, I cannot demonstrate that, I will admit.
By anyone having to deem a law "insane" before it can spoken out against, you are limiting progress and potentially allowing a slippery slope towards oppression.
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy As I did not say "your argument is this" and say something it wasn't, I was not strawmanning you; To do that, I would have to say that you was saying something which you wasn't. I simply demonstrated your logic to be flawed.
I think it is problematic you say that you are not against free speech it if is against an insane law; Who is to be the judge of which laws are "insane" and which are not?
By limiting free speech in any way, you opening the doors for oppression
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy Well, not really a strawman, as I said the argument structure was the same at the structure I used, not that the situation was the same; The only reason you said that Free Speech was not worth such a stance was because we did not have fully free speech now, but that says nothing about whatever or not it is worth taking a stance for free speech, it is merely pointing out there are other areas where we should take a stance for free speech
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy Well, so your argument is basicly that because free speech is not 100% yet then wanting free speech is pointless?
That basicly sums up what you are saying so far, which is a pretty silly argument:
Gays can't marry whenever and wherever they want, so gay marriage is pointless.
Religions are not all gone, so getting rid of them would be pointless.
Rapists sometimes get away with it, so punishing rapists is pointless.
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy Oh, forgot the last part: Gun ownership is severely restricted where I live and I think it is idiocy of the highest order that there is no more gun control in the states.
Gun ownership is rare here, it is only those who practice sports, are into hunting or who works for the militaries civil defense system, who has weapons in their homes, besides some criminals, of course.
Gun ownership is one of the hardest things to attain legally where I live
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy That assumes you live in America.
I don't, I got free speech, censorship is illegal where I live
mhrby1985 7 months ago
@Trucidofy I got to give you a thumbs down, while I agree with many things you say, I very strongly oppose your last point, that free speech should be limited for those are are against homosexuality: Sure, we can agree that those who are against something natural like homosexuality are misinformed, stupid or got problems with their own sexuality, or a combination of those, or other bad things.
But limiting free speech in any instance is simply wrong; Free speech with limits is not free speech
mhrby1985 7 months ago
I cannot take anything you say seriously while wearing that feather scarf and terrible sunglasses, aren't the gays supposed to have a sense of fashion. You look like Manson's ugly sister.
NinjaEar 7 months ago
Since my comments here two months ago, I have changed religions. I am no longer Christian. I'm now Muslim. I invite all the people I previously debated with to join me again in discussing our different views. I will squash all of you in debate. Allah is on my side. Allahu akbar!
YouMadButlSwag 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what humans do.
Strangerinasland 8 months ago
You took the Led Zeppelin song "Ramble On" to the extreme. Reminds me of my hight school history teacher.
roodyhoo 8 months ago
Are you a guy or gal? Or do you know?
roodyhoo 8 months ago
@roodyhoo She's a guy :P note......throat luggage.end of presentation :P
Horathgar42 8 months ago
@Trucidofy So what you're saying is: You're a Communist, atheist, queer right? Good luck with that!
roodyhoo 8 months ago
Honestly, when I went to church when I was little, that was why. I was told if I didn't believe in god I'd go to hell. So I prayed and went to church with my family so that if there was one, I wouldn't. It didn't mean I believed, just that I didn't want the possibility of hell to be true.
Now I believe, if God was going to send me to hell, they aren't one I would want to worship anyway.
MadHatterMCR 8 months ago
Ceej's Wager:
If you believe I'm God, and it turns out you're wrong, you lose nothing. But, if you're right, and you worship me and give me gifts, you gain everything. But, if you DON'T believe, and I send you to an eternity of firey torture, well.... I guess you should put your money on the fact I'm God. It's just safer.
TheCeejReturns 8 months ago
What if you're wrong?
What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real god & only the Patasfarian are saved.
Pascal's wager DEBUNKED. So we better live in reality.
Thank you. 2 Thumbs Up!
ronmac05ad 8 months ago 17
@ronmac05ad No, pascal's wager argued. Everyone should be pastafarian.
Smischmal 7 months ago
@Smischmal RAmen noodles brother :D
ronmac05ad 7 months ago
@ronmac05ad If you think that arguement holds up then go for it. You are definitely an unwise fool to some extent. Or perhaps you are just really stubborn. No wait... you KNOW god isn't real. Gro up bitch, my dicks bigger.
martiandog89 5 months ago
@martiandog89 You're the fool & you're a dick head & yes god is NOT real. Grow up, boogeyman god, zombie jesus, & pink unicorn don't exist in reality only in your delusional christ psychotic mind.
ronmac05ad 5 months ago
@ronmac05ad aww you hurt my feelings. I doubt you know shit about anything.
martiandog89 5 months ago
@ronmac05ad btw i only said something to you because you are stupid for thinking pascal's wager has been trashed. You are simply saying it is.. and betting we will discover matter and energies origins. You need to learn more about science and at least realize u have not proven religion wrong. im not offended by your beliefs, just your logic.
martiandog89 5 months ago
@martiandog89 You're stupid, science disproved religion many times e.g. bible & god said cure for leprosy is through sprinkling of blood of bird, quran & allah said cure for disease is through wing of a fly.
BTW we atheists have no beliefs on anything that is not Verifiable through Observation, Demonstration & Testing & this is how reality & scientific logic works!
ronmac05ad 5 months ago
@ronmac05ad I'm sorry, but I am a Pastryfarian...I worship the Holy Cannoli. I find them to be more spiritually filling.
Ypsiroselee 5 months ago
@Ypsiroselee Same here! RAmen brother! Praise the holy noodle :)
ronmac05ad 5 months ago
@ronmac05ad Well, it's sister, but may the Holy Cannoli bless you!
Ypsiroselee 5 months ago
@ronmac05ad I sure wouldn't want to be doomed to a Hell in which the beer is stale and the hookers have std's.
sk8tafrnk 5 months ago
@sk8tafrnk There is no hell, if there is then which one; the christian, jewish, muslim, mitrian or egyptian hell.
That's why you should embrace FSM because his holy noodleness will not condemn anyone to a hell that does not exist. :D
ronmac05ad 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are an agent from the matrix
TheWizzardOfRandom 8 months ago
what r u wearing
brittanymichel 8 months ago
I can watch you PC screen mirrored in your glasses... :)
HaakonTheViking 8 months ago
Solid logic and commentary - as usual...
. but lose the boa : it's very distracting. ( I want one too ! )
curiousgeorge1940 8 months ago
God bless king ZJ! ;)
pokeshmon 8 months ago
If someone is referring to the argumentation of this person...oh, let's say, 400 years from now, that would be a reason for a "seriously?" response.
dans0622 8 months ago
Answer me something: What good does the homosexual act bring to the human species? If you were to place all gays on a deserted island, they would die within one generation. their ONLY hope for survival would be to......sleep with someone of the opposite sex! Even creating life, humans cannot do. Not all sexual acts lead to pregnancy. Make life out of carbon and atoms, or body parts, like Dr. Frankenstein? Hollywood fantasy. Another proof of the existence of God. Anything else is fantasy...
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi "What good does the homosexual act bring to the human species? "
Fashion.
Reducing overpopulation.
What good have you done?
moopism 8 months ago
@moopism That's a good that the "person" does. I was referring to the acts. Fashion entails a working of the mind and it's creativity, not the genitals. As far as population, you do know that most of Europe is experiencing a demographic winter. So it is with Japan, so far that they were PAYING ppl to have more children, and now they were hit with an earthquake. The only thing that is keeping the USA alive is immigration. If I lie, then you've never been asked to press 2 "for Spanish", huh?
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi So why is reducing the population a bad thing?
Also, what was that,"If I lie, then you've never been asked to press 2 "for Spanish", huh?" supposed to mean? That homosexuality is evil because white folks don't breed enough and now all we have are inferior brown models?
There's a whole lot of ugly sentiment underlying that.
moopism 8 months ago
@moopism "...now all we have are inferior brown models?" I'M HISPANIC, moron! What is THAT supposed to mean??? INFERIOR??? White ppl are not inferior to us, nor do I feel superior or "cooler" cuz I'm hispanic....I don't need to flaunt my ethnicity, to come out on top or get my way...I use my brain. I suggest U do the same, cuz ur making white ppl look real stupid right now...no, wait...I know plenty of smart white ppl....I guess it's only u. Way to stand out....
xcolompapi 3 months ago
@xcolompapi You're the one that made the reference to pressing 2 for spanish.... I merely called you for how that reads, if you didn't mean it to be racist or homophobic, then explain that.
P.S. it took you 5 months?
moopism 3 months ago
@moopism I meant that you don't see the population decline in the US because of immigration, but you were too slow to grasp that, and grabbed on to my words and behind the race card like a lib knows how to do...It took me 5 months to respond, not to comprehend, you fool...U still don't get it do u?
xcolompapi 3 months ago
Comment removed
moopism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xcolompapi So because you're a homophobe instead of a racist and a homophobe you deserve a pass? Suck my nutsack.
I didn't say it took you five month to comprehend, but now that you mention it......
moopism 3 months ago
@moopism U'd love that, wouldn't U, homo? I don't hate nor do I "fear" gays....don't get your panties in a bunch, trying to slander and make me look hateful, just to buy some sad credibility to your weak arguments...not everyone is slow like you...the only nutsack u have is the one in ur mouth...
xcolompapi 3 months ago
@xcolompapi "U'd love that, wouldn't U, homo? I don't hate nor do I "fear" gays....don't get your panties in a bunch,"
Really? 'Cause the way you're throwing around slurs, it sure looks like it from here, Mary.
moopism 3 months ago
@moopism what slurs???? cuz I called u out on ur sexuality?
xcolompapi 3 months ago
@xcolompapi Don't play stupid, Mary, unless it's not an act....
moopism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xcolompapi said, [[" trying to slander and make me look hateful, just to buy some sad credibility to your weak arguments...not everyone is slow like you...the only nutsack u have is the one in ur mouth..."]]
Yes, of course you're not hateful. After all, you said much the same thing to your mother just the other day. BTW, remind her that I want my nutsack back please.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
....Now if God does "not exist", a non-existent, why do you argue it, and what does it matter to you? Either one of two: Belief matters to you, or there might be doubts in you.....If you say He doesn't exist, very simple, prove to me there is no God.
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi Why do we argue against god? Because we're living in a world where a large population of people want to make rules based on their superstition, and enforce their belief on others. Also; you're the one saying 'god exists', the burdan of proof lies on you making the claim - atheists simply say they do not believe in god, or that since no credible evidence has been presented, no god exists. You have the burden of proof to back up your claim; no matter how much you want to turn it around
pyrespirit 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xcolompapi "...Now if God does "not exist", a non-existent, why do you argue it, and what does it matter to you?"
Because jackoffs like you insist on legislating your superstitious "morality" on others. In the here and now, y'all can't resist trying to force theocracy on us.
moopism 8 months ago
@moopism If that is the case, why do you cry when Christmas comes around? It's not killing you is it? If at the workplace, when Sunday and other religious holidays come around, I assume you fight also to make it a working day, huh? It seems most are pretty comfortable with having Sunday off and a PAID holiday. Do you give the money back? I'd say you're very comfortable with Religion then, or what it does for you economically at least.
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi "If that is the case, why do you cry when Christmas comes around?"
WOW, that's quite a series of assumptions.
I don't celebrate Xmas, and haven't since I was a child.
I'm self employed and holidays I work because the phone stops ringing long enough to get something done.
When I did work for others, it was THEY who closed at Xmas, and gave me a day off, I could've cared less.
Does that mean that every green card worker should give there pay back on the 4th of July? That's facile.
moopism 8 months ago
I don't think you quite understand. You claim that ppl fail or are uneducated because they don't see it your way. Basic principle of "cause and effect" explains the existence of God. Even atheists live by their"faith and dogma". You know not about religion. How can you talk of something you don't know? I assure you did not research, but rather base it on defending your lifestyle in the most puerile of ways. Basically you don't argue a non-existent, like the Tooth fairy, unless your a child....
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi Um, atheists don't have "faith and dogma", to be specific, atheism is a lack of belief, not belief.
I don't believe in the tooth fairy either, but can you PROVE that the tooth fairy doesn't exist?
People kill other people over these irrational beliefs, that makes it kind of important to discuss. (no car bombs from the tooth fairy)
Do you believe in the tennants of other religions? If not, what makes you any better than Zinnia from the perspective of the people who do?
rynther 8 months ago
@rynther Car bombs? That would be radical Muslims, or ANY Radical. That does not make ALL religions the same. That makes your statement bigotted and very ignorant. Almost as idiotic as saying all blacks are "thieves and drug dealers". As far as faith: I believe I have a brain because I believe that which I have not seen. You say you only believe what you see. You have never seen your brain, as I have not either. Based on your "dogma" We can conclude that you have no brain then huh?
xcolompapi 8 months ago
@xcolompapi
So, we agree that nobody kills in the name of the tooth fairy, good. I see you can offer no proof for the lack of the tooth fairy's existence.
I have seen pictures of my brain, and I think that there is some value to what can be discovered by searching for knowledge.
And no, I didn't say that I only believe what I can see, I believe in what can be proven in an evidence based context.
rynther 8 months ago
pascals wager is a fine idea, and it doesn’t have to be your central pillar of faith, but pretentiously dismissing it like this just makes you a bigot. it’s actually fine and perfectly acceptable to have other views than yours, zinnia
LordCorinth 8 months ago
I love the music you use in your videos, it just somehow fits so well with what you're saying-- I don't know how that works, but it just does. :)
DragonsRule02 9 months ago
Its SO CRAZY that God is so completely against lying, deception, and being a false witness/not an eyewitness to an account of something, to the point of throwing people into an eternal hell for these things. Yet at the same time this God expects us to accept things like the bible by faith, that cannot be proven IN ANY WAY! How can this possibly be moral of us? Especially with all the horrible things in the bible!
spook79 9 months ago
Pascals wager is a philosophy that promotes the value: that this life we are all living right now is not worth living the way we see fit because of the possibility of an unprovable God. Don't be so intimidated of the reality of death people! Rather be intimidated of not living well!
spook79 9 months ago
ew.
NAMEWIERD 9 months ago
I couldn't agree more. The are many religious people who are not moral. And there are many non believers who are very moral. You totally blew that argument out the window. P.S looking kinda swish in this new video, although I am whiling to wager that this is not your actual Identity. You may well just be doing a Zaphod Beeblebrox and distracting us with a pretty identity while the real intelligence is produce by people a little less easy on the eye.
james0svince 9 months ago
This is all based upon the assumption that after death there is some form of life. A point when one gains knowledge that one did not have before death. Which, is totally and fully unsupportable. The only life you can be sure of is the one you have, and you should live it as positively and as responsibly as you possibly can.
diyogee 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
here here , well said !!
dkinetik 10 months ago
here here .. well said !!
dkinetik 10 months ago
@ZJemptv your argument is somewhat flawed. If one does believe in a god, but is wrong, and when we die we cease to exist, then one wouldn't be around to give a flying fuck about being wrong.
I half agree with another part of your argument - it's not all about what you believe. It's what you do, more than anything. The people who say it's all about believing are, quite frankly, wrong. I'll send you a message explaining this, as i am running out of space in this comment.
iSelenaLily 10 months ago
There's one problem with her argument against Pascal's Wager. If nothing happens after we die, that means we cease to exist, therefore we wouldn't be around to give a flying fuck about whether we were right or wrong. QED.
iSelenaLily 10 months ago
Eddie Izzard Jr.?
dorgodorato 10 months ago
Drag queen now? lol. Why do you have an adams apple?
Whatever. At least you are questioning the 'reality' of superstitious belief.
worktosser 10 months ago
are you a girl?
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
When the picture of Pat Robertson was flashed on the screen, I stood up and shouted, "That son-of-a-bitch!" This is what I do every time I see his face. I'm fairly sure I have Pat Robertson Tourrette's syndrome.
skharri18 10 months ago
Pascal's Wager is actually pretty effective, but only if you're using it to keep people who were already Christian from losing their faith. That's what I struggled most with, back when I was a stupid teenager. It actually took me about four more years to completely lose my faith, because of this fucking thing XP
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec How exactly do you 'lose your faith'?
Faith is a confident trust or belief not based on evidence or proof.
How do you lose that? If you stopped believed in God because there was no evidence, what kind of 'faith' is that?
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag I had faith in God, because I did not base my belief in Him on evidence. Years later, I realized how stupid that was, so I decided not to have faith in God anymore. What would you call that, besides losing my faith?
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec -You had faith (which is a confident trust/belief not based on evidence)
-Then you didn't have faith?
-How can you lose faith, when it isn't based on proof in the first place?
Maybe your faith was weak? Try asking God back into your life
I'm assuming you stopped believing because someone convinced you there isn't a God, because it can't be proven.
Does not make sense.
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag I had faith because I did not look at the evidence, because I didn't care. I wanted to believe, and nothing was going to stop me. When I became old enough, once my parents had told me there was no Santa Clause, once I learned that people lied and that I should use my own discretion to question the things people told me, I realized that God didn't add up. So I lost my faith. It had nothing to do with being convinced, it had everything to do with my own deduction.
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec God isn't even closely related to the idea of Santa, but explaining why there has to be an intelligent being would take too long.
These videos sort of sums it up.
watch?v=Swl0Pl4rURo
watch?v=SJmT15fDJ5Y
watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q
Anyways, sorry to hear that.
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag Santa showed me that anyone, even my parents, are capable of lying to me, so I began to ask questions about my own beliefs shortly after. The first, I think, was, `why did God send all the pre-Columbian Native Americans to hell, if none of them had ever had any hope of hearing anything about him? That seemed incredibly unfair to me.
I can't watch the videos now, I will when I get home.
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec They are in their grave awaiting the great resurrection. Hades = place of the dead. Hades is divided in two: 'paradise' and 'the lost'. After the death of Jesus, He descended to HADES and took the occupants of 'paradise' up with him to heaven. The lost side of hades has remained unchanged. All of the lost go there & await final judgment
Hades is temporary, where souls are kept as they wait final resurrection. HELL is a future realm after judgment day where it is eternal torment.
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag Are those who did not believe when they died destined for Hell? From what I've been taught, if you fuck up in this life, you can't change your mind after you die. What denomination are you? Also, I don't remember anywhere in the Bible that says that, can you point out a verse?
That's not the only problem I have with Christianity, it was just the first of many. I have thousands of questions like that, now.
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec
These do a better job explaining than I do.
go to: gotquestions(dot)org and paste these in after
/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
/what-happens-death.html
/never-heard.html
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag Okay, that basically tells me God will send you to hell, even if you've never heard of him. That's really fucking unfair, no loving god would do that, and in that case, I hold my position. The website tries to butter up the situation by explaining that `god presents himself in nature,' but whether he does or not is not the point. You go to heaven if you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins, not if you believe God exists. Jesus dying on a cross is not shown in nature.
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec It is foolish to debate the fairness of God sending someone to hell who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ. People are responsible to God for what God has already revealed to them. The Bible says that people reject this knowledge, and therefore God is just in condemning them to hell. People had heard about a coming Messiah (Jesus) hundreds and hundreds of years before He came. If they truly wanted to know, they could find out. But, "no one seeks for God."
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@YouMadButISwag You're being blind, like most theists. It doesn't matter what the bible says about any `God has revealed himself' bullshit. The fact remains that if Christianity is assumed to be correct, that means to believe in the coming of the Messiah is to go to heaven, and to not is to live in eternal torment. The Mayans had absolutely no possible way of knowing anything about any messiah being killed across the fucking ocean. Therefore, your god is unfair and does not deserve my worship.
DarthFennec 10 months ago
@DarthFennec Read my other comment, but the question you are asking is too deep for me to answer. But I do know that the people on the 'paradise' side of Hades (I don't know how exactly they got to the paradise side) were taken by Jesus up to heaven, because Jesus saw that in their hearts they were worthy.
So maybe some Mayans were worthy? I have no idea, because I've never been to Hades. But if you believe God doesn't deserve your worship, that is certainly your own affair.
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago
@DarthFennec The Spaniards tried to convert the Mayans (and Aztecs, ect) to Christianity. So yeah, for your example, they had a possible way of knowing. They rejected it, though.
YouMadButISwag 10 months ago