If youre so sure its correct not to have faith in God, why do you have faith in Atheism? No proof on that either. Just a bunch of people trying their best to look sceptical, and shoving their lack of faith down peoples throats, while pouring scorn on religious people who spread the word of God.
If you are simply going to point to lack of evidence, then you are Agnostic. If you truly are an Atheist, then you enjoy your faith and Ill enjoy mine.
To correct you on a couple of points, Pascal didn't assume 50/50 odds or that inaccurate belief cost nothing. Rather, he argued that the reward of heaven and torment of hell were so great, and eternal in duration, such that for any finite cost for belief and any non-zero assessment of the probability of God's existence, the expected value favors belief. Otherwise, a fair assessment of a fallacious argument.
Another point to make about the "More than one God" section is that in many denominations, those who do good but do not accept Christ are often designated a separate circle of hell (The Christian Hell). It's essentially a watered down version of Heaven (see Inferno by Dante). Those who are not sinful are not 'condemned' so to speak, in many denominations. As you said in the video, that same 'version' of god would condemn you if you chose another, but if you chose none, you would be fine.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Technically I'm a deist-pantheist, not an atheist, but I love anything against theism and theocracy. I think Pascal's Wager has less relevance in today's society than it did when he suggested it: enormous quantities of evidence have become available in the past two centuries to refute most aspects of the supernatural.
@intruder313 I felt the same way when I was a closed mined atheist as well. You see, people are searching for the The Creator of the Universe. They're many different interpretations and paths to him, but there is only one God. I don't think God really cares what your interpretation of him is and how you search for him, as long as you search. The only caveat I strongly assume he has is that you not kill nor harm other humans in his name.
I got some weird flashbacks to fellow atheist Prplfox from listening to this. You have some of the same weird upward inflections at the end of certain words. At the risk of sounding a little gay it sound a little cute'ish =P
Anyway, good video. I will watch the other one you have made now. Hope you make more, as these are well produced and though-out.
@LthanReputable And as far as your concern about religion causing people to kill one anther, are you not aware that atheists like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and the 40 million people they murdered?
@lthanreputable - Do you believe that everything is a cause and effect reaction from the Big Bang, and that even our thoughts are not "our own", because they are simply biological reactions to the random environment that encounter by chance?
If you are an atheist and there is no god, you alrady know the truth! And if there is a god, you will find out in the afterlife, along with which one! You will find out the truth eventually NO MATTER WHAT.
If you are religious, and there is a god, you will find out which one when you die. But if there is no god, you will never know the truth! Being religious, you MAY OR MAY NOT find the absolute truth.
2. You don't leave atheism, there are no tenants. You are not a theist, I am attacking a theist position, you are a deist if all you believe is the universe was created for a reason.
There is no reason to have faith the universe was created for a reason, even if it were, our small position here pretty well indicates that if it is created for a purpose. We are not it.
@LthanReputable What I don't understand about Atheist is how you guys run around trying to prove there isn't a God. You know that brain scientist have "proven" that love doesn't exist (It is just a hormone call oxytocin), but I don't see you guys making augments that love doesn't exist? Why don't you guys attack religious dogma instead mans attempt to have oneness with the universe. Go after stuff like that creationist nonsense and female gentile mutilation?
@samayoa95 That didn't address anything I said... However, I am not trying to prove god doesn't exist. I want to show there is no good reason to believe the claims. Its not a dichotomy, My position is neither and that makes me an atheist, your thinking of an anti-theist. That's not proving love doesn't exist its just quantifying it, making it more real. "You guys" doesn't really work here, but to answer your question I am planning on attacking those things, this video is just a warm up.
@LthanReputable You are the one that seems to be making the false dichotomy. The Big bang was a SINGLE event. There can't no more, nor no less then one God. What people of faith are discussing is what This God wants from us. Why did he put us here with free will and self consciousness?
With everything that is going on wrong with humanity, why attack God? Why not global warming or human suffering? You Atheist have too much time on your hands to be making Youtubes disproving God.
@samayoa95 I didn't mention the big bang, you assume that I accept it as a theory. I don't off hand. I haven't looked into the evidence for it yet. Are you reading off of a script? You hardly address anything I say in my last message?
Your wrong. People of faith are not discussing what their god(s) wants, they will kill over it until either everyone but them is dead, everyone is dead, or religion dies. Their religions demand it (top 3 monotheisms). Again we are not trying to disprove god(s).
@LthanReputable 1. "Prove it" The reason and logic of modern metaphysics has done a very good job of providing more than reasonable "proofs" through logic and reason of the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality that is needed for all conditioned realities to exist. It then looks at the idea of could there be more than one unconditioned reality? Continued...
@LthanReputable Through logic and reason it is found that no there couldn't, b/c this unconditioned reality must have no intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries so as to ground all of conditioned reality in its existence, so it can't exclude any part of all reality if it is the full-filling condition of all reality. If there is another unconditioned reality also with no boundaries it must be the same exact being b/c to be a different being it must have something that makes it different from..continued
@LthanReputable our 1st postulated unconditioned reality, and if it does that means that it has some intrinsic or extrinsic boundary that separates it from that 1st unconditioned reality. If it does have any boundary it cannot be the reality that grounds all else in reality since it would exclude parts of reality. Our unconditoned reality must not exclude any part so conditoned reality, or that part of conditoned reality wouldn't exist; i.e. that 2nd theorized reality is not unconditioned.
@LthanReputable atheism isn't a sheer rejection, it does have "tenants" (tenets, I think you meant) of a sort.
“Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”
@samayoa95 Nonsense - lots of different Religions worship DIFFERENT Gods. They are all mutually exclusive and thus by choosing one you choose against the others.
Even if we were to take Pascal's Wager seriously, we would have to examine which one of the hundreds of thousands of gods to believe in. Supposing that each one of these gods has the same amount of (or lack of) evidence, you would really just be picking at random. Thus, just by pure probability, you should expect to go to hell no matter which god you pick to worship. Honestly, I can't even believe people still think that Pascal's Wager is anything but retarded.
@amandasupak - according to the World Christian Encyclopaedia, there were 33,820 separate and distinct sects/groups within Christianity as of 2001 - the author David B. Barrett is a 'charismatic' Christian himself.
Proofread your description again quick. ("These are not all the reasons..." thought, Atheist, criticism, warranted)
Otherwise, great video.
I think it would be greatly improved by more graphic variety + animation.
For example, showing a visual aid of the many varieties of religion and the insignificant odds that any given one is correct (you showed the 50/50 false dichotomy using a Venn diagram, you could demonstrate this by having many black circles and 1 white).
@eatingkiwi Thanks, I'm embarrassed about the tithe thing :p sorry. However I fixed the description and I totally agree about better graphics. I plan to shorten the videos, talk more quickly and have more images however in the mean time animation is out of the question. I can't draw as you probably saw :P
I can understand Agnostics but not Atheists.
If youre so sure its correct not to have faith in God, why do you have faith in Atheism? No proof on that either. Just a bunch of people trying their best to look sceptical, and shoving their lack of faith down peoples throats, while pouring scorn on religious people who spread the word of God.
If you are simply going to point to lack of evidence, then you are Agnostic. If you truly are an Atheist, then you enjoy your faith and Ill enjoy mine.
smokindavie 1 week ago
Its not tith, its Tithe, like TIE or TIGHT not like Tit
TEHTYMEKITTEH1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LthanReputable
To correct you on a couple of points, Pascal didn't assume 50/50 odds or that inaccurate belief cost nothing. Rather, he argued that the reward of heaven and torment of hell were so great, and eternal in duration, such that for any finite cost for belief and any non-zero assessment of the probability of God's existence, the expected value favors belief. Otherwise, a fair assessment of a fallacious argument.
Reltzik 2 months ago
No matter how horrible you paint hell to be or how wonderful you imagine heaven, converting to christianity because of Pascal's Wager is nonsensical.
AtheismIsCorrect 4 months ago
Another point to make about the "More than one God" section is that in many denominations, those who do good but do not accept Christ are often designated a separate circle of hell (The Christian Hell). It's essentially a watered down version of Heaven (see Inferno by Dante). Those who are not sinful are not 'condemned' so to speak, in many denominations. As you said in the video, that same 'version' of god would condemn you if you chose another, but if you chose none, you would be fine.
APWPerkins 4 months ago in playlist APWPerkins's favourites
pawn the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument!
Haradin32 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
I like it.
Technically I'm a deist-pantheist, not an atheist, but I love anything against theism and theocracy. I think Pascal's Wager has less relevance in today's society than it did when he suggested it: enormous quantities of evidence have become available in the past two centuries to refute most aspects of the supernatural.
Keep it up :D
Benes911 6 months ago
"all with equal evidence" yeah with none. i loled
Crosell 7 months ago
@briannacollins44 Well alot actually, for once the lack of burden of proof in the christian side,
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
Very nice video, keep it up. I like your style.
nateNbakkestudios 7 months ago
isn't belief natural?
briannacollins44 7 months ago
in an all respectful manner what is stopping you guys from believing?
briannacollins44 7 months ago
@intruder313 I felt the same way when I was a closed mined atheist as well. You see, people are searching for the The Creator of the Universe. They're many different interpretations and paths to him, but there is only one God. I don't think God really cares what your interpretation of him is and how you search for him, as long as you search. The only caveat I strongly assume he has is that you not kill nor harm other humans in his name.
samayoa95 9 months ago
pascal is the original POW !!!
parsonman05 9 months ago
nice
SoulBane 9 months ago
I got some weird flashbacks to fellow atheist Prplfox from listening to this. You have some of the same weird upward inflections at the end of certain words. At the risk of sounding a little gay it sound a little cute'ish =P
Anyway, good video. I will watch the other one you have made now. Hope you make more, as these are well produced and though-out.
TheStigma 9 months ago
@LthanReputable And as far as your concern about religion causing people to kill one anther, are you not aware that atheists like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and the 40 million people they murdered?
samayoa95 10 months ago
@lthanreputable - Do you believe that everything is a cause and effect reaction from the Big Bang, and that even our thoughts are not "our own", because they are simply biological reactions to the random environment that encounter by chance?
Marcrates 10 months ago
Pascal's wager says to pick which religion?
1) The best hevean (Mormon)
2) The worst hell (Islam)
3) The most evidence (atheism)
anticorncob6 10 months ago
If you want to know the truth, be an atheist!
If you are an atheist and there is no god, you alrady know the truth! And if there is a god, you will find out in the afterlife, along with which one! You will find out the truth eventually NO MATTER WHAT.
If you are religious, and there is a god, you will find out which one when you die. But if there is no god, you will never know the truth! Being religious, you MAY OR MAY NOT find the absolute truth.
anticorncob6 10 months ago
You did not make good augments.
1. They isn't multiple Gods. There is ONE GOD and multiple interpretations of the same God.
2. I have lost NOTHING since I have left atheism. I have gained. I have gone from an angry & grouchy Republican, to a Happy & Liberal vegetarian :)
BTW: I'm not claiming you have to follow religious Dogma, just have faith that the universe is here for a reason.
samayoa95 10 months ago
@samayoa95
1. Prove it.
2. You don't leave atheism, there are no tenants. You are not a theist, I am attacking a theist position, you are a deist if all you believe is the universe was created for a reason.
There is no reason to have faith the universe was created for a reason, even if it were, our small position here pretty well indicates that if it is created for a purpose. We are not it.
LthanReputable 10 months ago 6
@LthanReputable What I don't understand about Atheist is how you guys run around trying to prove there isn't a God. You know that brain scientist have "proven" that love doesn't exist (It is just a hormone call oxytocin), but I don't see you guys making augments that love doesn't exist? Why don't you guys attack religious dogma instead mans attempt to have oneness with the universe. Go after stuff like that creationist nonsense and female gentile mutilation?
samayoa95 10 months ago
@samayoa95 That didn't address anything I said... However, I am not trying to prove god doesn't exist. I want to show there is no good reason to believe the claims. Its not a dichotomy, My position is neither and that makes me an atheist, your thinking of an anti-theist. That's not proving love doesn't exist its just quantifying it, making it more real. "You guys" doesn't really work here, but to answer your question I am planning on attacking those things, this video is just a warm up.
LthanReputable 10 months ago 5
@LthanReputable You are the one that seems to be making the false dichotomy. The Big bang was a SINGLE event. There can't no more, nor no less then one God. What people of faith are discussing is what This God wants from us. Why did he put us here with free will and self consciousness?
With everything that is going on wrong with humanity, why attack God? Why not global warming or human suffering? You Atheist have too much time on your hands to be making Youtubes disproving God.
samayoa95 10 months ago
@samayoa95 I didn't mention the big bang, you assume that I accept it as a theory. I don't off hand. I haven't looked into the evidence for it yet. Are you reading off of a script? You hardly address anything I say in my last message?
Your wrong. People of faith are not discussing what their god(s) wants, they will kill over it until either everyone but them is dead, everyone is dead, or religion dies. Their religions demand it (top 3 monotheisms). Again we are not trying to disprove god(s).
LthanReputable 10 months ago 3
@samayoa95 multiple people can cause a single even, herp derp
sailornaruto39 4 months ago
@sailornaruto39 I don't understand.
samayoa95 4 months ago
@samayoa95 "The Big bang was a SINGLE event. There can't no more, nor no less then one God. "
you implied since there was only one event only one person did it. When multiple things were going on inside it
sailornaruto39 4 months ago
@LthanReputable 1. "Prove it" The reason and logic of modern metaphysics has done a very good job of providing more than reasonable "proofs" through logic and reason of the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality that is needed for all conditioned realities to exist. It then looks at the idea of could there be more than one unconditioned reality? Continued...
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
@LthanReputable Through logic and reason it is found that no there couldn't, b/c this unconditioned reality must have no intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries so as to ground all of conditioned reality in its existence, so it can't exclude any part of all reality if it is the full-filling condition of all reality. If there is another unconditioned reality also with no boundaries it must be the same exact being b/c to be a different being it must have something that makes it different from..continued
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
@LthanReputable our 1st postulated unconditioned reality, and if it does that means that it has some intrinsic or extrinsic boundary that separates it from that 1st unconditioned reality. If it does have any boundary it cannot be the reality that grounds all else in reality since it would exclude parts of reality. Our unconditoned reality must not exclude any part so conditoned reality, or that part of conditoned reality wouldn't exist; i.e. that 2nd theorized reality is not unconditioned.
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
@LthanReputable atheism isn't a sheer rejection, it does have "tenants" (tenets, I think you meant) of a sort.
“Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”
— Carl Sagan
handsomebrick 9 months ago
@samayoa95 Nonsense - lots of different Religions worship DIFFERENT Gods. They are all mutually exclusive and thus by choosing one you choose against the others.
They are all nonsense anyway.
intruder313 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
samayoa95 9 months ago
C.S. Lewis refuted pretty much every argument like this over 50 years ago.
handsomebrick 10 months ago
@handsomebrick like what?
DyfnalltDH 10 months ago
@DyfnalltDH The argument that religion is arbitrary. Like the whole "flying spaghetti monster" thing.
handsomebrick 10 months ago
I wuv u
TheGstein 10 months ago
The spelling mistakes are the only detractor to a really effective, articulate video. I like the animations, too.
AmyInChains161 10 months ago
Even if we were to take Pascal's Wager seriously, we would have to examine which one of the hundreds of thousands of gods to believe in. Supposing that each one of these gods has the same amount of (or lack of) evidence, you would really just be picking at random. Thus, just by pure probability, you should expect to go to hell no matter which god you pick to worship. Honestly, I can't even believe people still think that Pascal's Wager is anything but retarded.
RockBandFAQ 10 months ago
Wonderful video, my only question is, where did you get the number 38,000 for the amount of christian denominations? Thanks!
amandasupak 10 months ago 7
@amandasupak - according to the World Christian Encyclopaedia, there were 33,820 separate and distinct sects/groups within Christianity as of 2001 - the author David B. Barrett is a 'charismatic' Christian himself.
KrokrX 9 months ago
Excellent!!! Like Big Bird-Style....anyone can get this....
drarkanex 10 months ago 4
@drarkanex Thanks :D I hope to bring you more Sesame Street atheism.
LthanReputable 10 months ago
Excellent response to Pascal's wager. Well done :]
TheoreticalIdeation 10 months ago
Tithe: The "i" is a long "i"
Proofread your description again quick. ("These are not all the reasons..." thought, Atheist, criticism, warranted)
Otherwise, great video.
I think it would be greatly improved by more graphic variety + animation.
For example, showing a visual aid of the many varieties of religion and the insignificant odds that any given one is correct (you showed the 50/50 false dichotomy using a Venn diagram, you could demonstrate this by having many black circles and 1 white).
eatingkiwi 10 months ago 3
@eatingkiwi Thanks, I'm embarrassed about the tithe thing :p sorry. However I fixed the description and I totally agree about better graphics. I plan to shorten the videos, talk more quickly and have more images however in the mean time animation is out of the question. I can't draw as you probably saw :P
LthanReputable 10 months ago
Not exactly the first refutation of Pascal's I've seen, but pretty high on the stylishness of delivery rankings.
TETSUno1 10 months ago 3
@TETSUno1 Thanks :) I realize how overdone Pascal's Wager is, I thought it would be good practice however.
LthanReputable 10 months ago