Jackpot

[Furrowbrow]

Great video there, Pino.

I find it interesting that a theist would accuse atheists of evangelism.

I've never ever had an atheist knocking at my door to 'close my eyes to theism', or been stopped in the street by somebody telling me that there probably is no God, so I should just get on and enjoy my life.

I've never walked past somebody preaching from 'the origin of the species' in the street.

Religious folk feel they have the right to do all of these things, and sulk when they get rebutted.

[rozeboosje]

LOL - yeah

[ShortbusMooner]

I really don't interact with, or watch YT theists, as I find them to be mostly psychotic &/or fanatical. (the ones that come here to preach &/or condemn- not the normal YT'ers that are here to have fun/watch entertaining people/vids, & just happen to be theists)

I don't care how or what the wack-jobs think about me as an atheist. IMHO, I feel them to be disturbing, & I try not to waste my time with the neanderthals.

ooo, ooo! Fire! Must be God! ooo, ooo! Lightning! Must be God!

Sheesh!

[rozeboosje]

rofl

I particularly like to respond to Jack as he keeps adopting this persona of someone who tries to build bridges, when to someone able to read between the lines (and also this has been confirmed to me by Jack himself although I had to push him HARD before he was ready to say so out loud) it is blatantly obvious that Jack really does see us as human garbage. He doesn't express it as openly as Yokey does, but he'll never deny it because he knows he can't.

[pickofthepatch]

Facts have to be proven-Correct?

What proven facts is that GOD does not exist.Solid proven facts.

Infact you might show me the solid facts that time exists-

[rozeboosje]

Show me one "proven fact". Can be anything you like. Just one.

[musicgeniusno1]

Great video Pino. :)

[rozeboosje]

Thank you

[thatgaybloke]

I'm impressed you managed to say all that without moving your lips.

I think I would place myself in the first camp of atheists as well. I really don't care if other people believe in their gods or that copper bangles cure arthritis or that you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up. The only thing that I care about when it comes to other people's beliefs is how those beliefs affect me. If they don't - none of my business.

[rozeboosje]

Ramen to that

[thatgaybloke]

Want to believe in your god and follow the rules laid down in scripture? Knock yourself out. None of my business.

Want to put those rules into law and affect how I live my life? You've made it my business.

[rozeboosje]

Exactly

[spinkwotzer]

I don't know Rozeboosje, does it not seem a bit condescending to say that it's a FACT that his God does not exist and yet to also say that you accept it's right for HIM to believe in this God? Doesn't that come across a bit as saying "you can't help being wrong, it's just who you are"?

[rozeboosje]

That's why I stated very clearly that I didn't mean this to be condescending or patronising; I am well aware that it can definitely come across that way, but I can't think of a better way of expressing what I'm trying to say.

[rozeboosje]

BTW - stating a fact is not condescending per se. It's what you do with it that can make it so. I actually find pussyfooting around a person, acting as if you're not utterly convinced of your facts, as if a contradicting proposition that makes no sense at all is somehow potentially valid and should be treated as such even if you know full well that it isn't, much more condescending than simply saying, sorry, but the facts contradict your claims.

[spinkwotzer]

I totally get that, and I should make it clear, I'm not saying it's condescending to say it's a fact that his God doesn't exist. A very bold statement, to be sure, but not condescending.

I'm saying it's potentially condescending to suggest that believing things that contradict the facts might be right FOR HIM.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at here, as I'm certainly not advocating pussyfooting...

[spinkwotzer]

...I'm saying it makes sense to me to either say "I'm certain of my facts, and therefore you're wrong", or to say "I'm not certain about this one, and therefore I can respect your beliefs". To say "I'm certain of my facts, but I can respect your beliefs" doesn't quite add up. I know I'm paraphrasing by saying you're "respecting" Jack's beliefs, but you said you accept that it's right FOR HIM, which I think is similar to saying you respect it.

[rozeboosje]

There's a difference between being wrong and being mistaken. He is obviously mistaken. His god does not exist, so if he believes that it does then his belief is based on factually incorrect information. I can assure you that I do not respect his belief either. Respect is something that needs to be earned and he certainly has done absolutely nothing to get to that point. But ...

[rozeboosje]

... I can accept that he has arrived at his belief system for reasons that make sense to him, even if they ARE mistaken, and if I cannot communicate to him on what basis I have to reject his beliefs, then I cannot reasonably expect him to believe otherwise. I must also consider that to him the idea that there may not be a god is SO terrifying that feeling pushed in that direction causes him genuine mental anguish. That is the sense in which I use the word "right" (more)

[rozeboosje]

when I say it is right for him to believe that way. And I KNOW how condescending that sounds, but how else am I to put it? If the alternative to holding a mistaken belief is to descend into the depths of despair then for Pete's sake one should hold on to that belief. I do not wish to take that away from him, but all the same, I will not be condemned. THAT is the point at which I draw the line and my tolerance toward his belief system ends.

[spinkwotzer]

"I must also consider that to him the idea that there may not be a god is SO terrifying that feeling pushed in that direction causes him genuine mental anguish."

I used to be a Christian, and that's pretty much how it was for me. However, I fought through the mental anguish. Surely trying to protect someone from the mental anguish of facing the fact that their beliefs are mistaken is doing them an indignity and sparing them something which they actually need to go through.

[spinkwotzer]

Of course, you can't do anything about whether Jack or any other Christian decides to go through the pain of disillusionment, but the least you can do is not to tell an alcoholic that he needs his drink, know what I mean?

[rozeboosje]

Certainly, and sorry, that's not how I meant it.

[rozeboosje]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not sparing him. Like I said: I am not pretending to him that he has a valid point to make. But I can't push him to abandoning it. He has to take that step himself, and if he doesn't want to, I have to accept it. Not respect it, but accept it. It's his decision that he made about his own life, and none of my business, just like conversely none of my decisions about my life are any of his.

[spinkwotzer]

It's cool man. To be honest, it's something I often think about. Are some of these Christians as miserable and conflicted as I used to be? Or do they genuinely want to live this way? The latter is just incomprehesible to me, but there must be some that really want this. I just like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're actually needing encouragement/permission to break out of the mould. Undoubtedly some actually like the mould and I guess we can't do a lot to help them.

[rozeboosje]

yeah. *sigh*

[METALMEATPLOW]

Great video. However, isn't this the whole problem religious and non-religious people have with each other? The problem of shoving beliefs down each others throats? Good luck getting anyone to concede the point of 'let bygones be bygones.'

[rozeboosje]

Please elaborate on how non-believers shove beliefs down believers' throats. Don't mention militant atheists, those who have stated that they seek to destroy religion. That point can be conceded. But outside that group?

[METALMEATPLOW]

Outside that group I'm sure there are a few satellite non-believers who do this. No one group is ever completely innocent. However it is mostly the religious. I can't speak for all religions but part of being religious is spreading the word of their god. Which is all I meant. Good luck getting any religious person to just let bygones be bygones. My fault for not elaborating to begin with.

[rozeboosje]

No worries.

[HeavyTrafficAhead]

I see Jack is breaking out his old Three Card Monty table ready to hustle it up, as usual. While I'm usually the 'hands off' Atheist, when I hear someone like Jack stating this 'live and let live' jive and then I see shit like Catholic bishops strong arming my government to interfere in reproductive rights, that's when I start getting militant. When he speaks out against that kind of interference, then I'll take him seriously. I don't see Atheists sticking their noses into people's private lives

[rozeboosje]

Now there is a valid observation indeed.

"live and let live" is a great sentiment, but it is seriously spoilt if one follows that with "but live the way I think is right or I will keep whittering on about how meaningless your life is".

[HeavyTrafficAhead]

That's what really grinds my gears about Jack's attitude. When he states, unequivocally, that enforcing his world view via the government is wrong, then I will take his entreaties to an Atheist/Theist detente more seriously. But while he remains silent when religious organizations feel free to interfere in public policy while enjoying the advantages of tax exempt status, then he can go pound sand for all I care. Right now that's the focus of my 'Atheism'.

[rozeboosje]

We're pretty much on the same page then.

[mark9165]

No way will he surrender the safety net of his position of smug superiority and self righteouness under the umbrella of his all powerful cosmic torture monger and vengeance dealer.

He is pathetic and powerless so he likes the feeling of power that an imaginary friend who burns his enemies after they die gives him.

[rozeboosje]

His lack of response so far certainly does not fill me with confidence.

[metalorg]

Live and let live is nice as much as it's possible but since we live in a society there will be lots of friction when there are huge differences in the view of reality.

[rozeboosje]

Only if others think they can define MY reality for me.

[nelliediddle]

:D really well explained

[rozeboosje]

Thanks!

[premed2]

Yeah it was. Without the "yelling" you made your points far more effectively than in the past. Perhaps now other atheists will consider you, rather than Jack, as a suitable babysitter for their children.

Great vid!

[rozeboosje]

Sadly, I don't see Jack engaging with THIS video any more than he has with the others I made. I may have made my points more effectively to a different group of people than I did with previous videos on the topic, but I haven't gotten any closer to getting through to Jack himself. Not that I expected to, but it stings nonetheless.

[premed2]

I understand that it stings, but I don't understand why it stings. The "stinging" is an emotional response to Jack's beliefs. You do not share these beliefs but yet it bothers you that Jack holds them—its personal, somehow. Jack is not treating you unfairly, he's "believing about you" unfairly? Is that what stings?

Please help me understand and/or feel it from your perspective—I know many others feel as you do.

[rozeboosje]

What is worrying about Jacks beliefs is not that he believes that people like you and I deserve to suffer by eternally feeling the wrenching loss of the absence of his imaginary friend. What I find funny about YOUR response to that is that you focus on the imaginary friend and how you don't share the belief in that entity. Neither do I. What bothers me about the belief is not that there is an imaginary friend involved. What bothers me is that he feels I deserve to suffer. Period.

[premed2]

If he just believes this, and there is 100% certainty that he will take no adverse actions against you, or indirectly cause such actions to occur, why do you care? Especially since with Jack, this is not a personal issue it is a global, all encompassing tenet of his belief system.

[rozeboosje]

Because history is full of examples of religious nutjobs who have grown impatient of their God's promises to make the non-believers suffer, and who take matters into their own hands. I hate to bring this up, but you DO know the story of Jack and the dog, don't you?

[premed2]

Did you ignore my qualifiers on purpose? That's very atypical of you. My question specifically excluded the circumstances you mention. Please help me understand. Within the parameters of my question, do you have any objections to Jacks beliefs concerning you? What are they?

Yes, I do know about the dog, and I do have concerns, just as you have, for dogs, and human beings vis-a-vis this issue.

[premed2]

Let me be more specific. I am intending to ask only about the personal, but I inadvertently left a loop hole open.

If there is 100% certainty that Jack's beliefs would not cause any harm to any living thing or to any non-living thing to which a living thing attaches value, would his beliefs about YOU cause you distress or some other emotion response which would exceed the "basal level" by lets say, 10%. If so, how does this work/feel?

As you may have surmised, I ask because I don't feel it.

[rozeboosje]

Sorry, I don't buy "100% certainty" of anything, and definitely not about Jack.

But even if I were to adopt that impossible assumption, what it means is that all his interactions with us are built on this foundation of condemnation. He is incapable of accepting us as we are, and I do not tolerate that. I'm not demanding approval, but I will demand acceptance.

[premed2]

I don't feel, at least to the same degree as you do, the need to be accepted, since in order for Jack to accept me (us) he would have to give up his worldview. I don't feel that such narrow minded perspectives as Jack holds are benign, they may help to precipitate decidedly harmful outcomes; they trouble me, but they do not offend me. It doesn't feel personal to me, yet I sense that it does for you.

Do you experience this issue on a personal level?

[rozeboosje]

Whoa. What are you on about?

You're looking at this the wrong way around. Jack is the one looking for affirmation. That's why he keeps making the sort of videos he makes. My response to him is: you want to be embraced by the likes of us? Then stop condemning us. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

[premed2]

Wow! That's so far away from what I asked it floors me! I can only surmise that you don't want to answer my question or you fail to understand it. Its fine if you don't wish to answer, but if that is the case please give me the courtesy of a clear indication of such. I believe I understand Jack's motivations. I'm asking about yours, not Jack's. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I suspect the answer to my question is, "yes". If so there is nothing wrong with that either.

[rozeboosje]

I strongly suspect that you are asking deliberately inflammatory questions in order to provoke responses. After all, what is YOUR motivation here? This is a video in which I respond to Jack. Every time I respond to Jack, you are all over it like a dog in heat. What has this got to do with you? Is this something that touches you on a deep personal level?

It's like asking someone "why are you angry" when they are not. At first they'll tell you that they're not, but (more)

[rozeboosje]

as you keep insisting that they ARE, you can bet your ass that sooner or later you'll piss them off enough so they'll start shouting enough. What does that prove? Nothing.

My responses to Jask are nothing "personal" to me, no, so I am not going to respond to your poking with that question.

[premed2]

You've misunderstood my motivation. I do not feel the same way you do, but I agree with your logic. I don't understand why you experience this level of passion and I don't. In the past I've been critical of you (in my mind rightly so), but I always think of you as a friend. Curiosity—that is my motivation.

It's not personal, I accept that. Perhaps you feel as passionately as you do about this issue out of a matter of principle—you may have a stronger sense of morality than I.

[rozeboosje]

Don't worry - I think of you the same way and that's one reason why I feel I can up the ante with you a bit ;-)

Ok. Reason I got ratty there was that I thought you were fishing for a personal issue between myself and Jack; that's how I read your question about it being "personal". It certainly isn't. I'm finding it difficult to explain what exactly IS the issue here, but let me try ... (more)

[rozeboosje]

Let me try to explain this by first exploring how I react to other people I see on YouTube. For example, when I see people like YokeUp and Geerup. These are people who wear their hatred for anything non-Christian on their sleeve. They may as well walk around wearing a flashing neon sign saying "idiot" with a big arrow pointing at them. I am happy that anyone looking at such people can recognise them for what they are, and I find them amusing more than anything else. Of course (more)

[rozeboosje]

I'm pointing out two Christians because this is leading up to me trying to explain why I respond like this to Jack, in particular, but there are plenty of people like that in all "communities" on YouTube, including the "atheist" one.

Then there are plenty of people who genuinely embrace things such as Christianity for personal reasons, but who honestly struggle with the condemnatory nature of what it says in their holy book or dogma. I recognise these people by the way they (more)

[rozeboosje]

try to reinterpret the tenets of their faith so that they become neutral toward the out-group. A very good example of this, in the Christian community, is Universal Salvation, the notion that Jesus died for us all, and that the Gospel, the "good news" is just a matter of making sure everybody knows it so they don't have to live their life worrying about what may come after (yeah, I know, it's a form of "projection" but at least it's, in my opinion, a harmless one). (more)

[rozeboosje]

But with Jack, all my intuitions point at "con artist". Jack is after something. Just like Anne Widdecombe said about Michael Howard, he has "something of the night" about him. I know I have already been proven right about him once; I don't know whether you saw my video "my Paxman to Jack's Howard", but that is when I KNEW he condemned people. And yet, he would not say so outright, until I pushed him and pushed him until he finally gave in and admitted it in a comment. (more)

[rozeboosje]

I would love to think that Jack is just, as you like to think, struggling with an internal conflict between his emotional need to feel that he is in a special relationship with his imaginary friend, and what he believes is in store for those who (as he sees it) reject that relationship (rather than, as it actually is, cannot accept that the imaginary friend really exists), but my experience back then is that he seemed to think that I was, back then, looking for his "approval" and (more)

[rozeboosje]

that he seemed to relish immensely the game of cat and mouse he thought he was engaged in with me. When eventually I pushed him to admitting his true feelings, he not only disengaged from the interaction immediately, he has since made a point of point blank ignoring anything I say to him. I see him post his videos and I think "FRAUD". Is that a manifestation of a "strong" sense of morality? I don't know, but it sure flies in the face of my instinctive sense of "fair play".

[rozeboosje]

Sorry for sounding melodramatic but - when I look at Jack I think I am looking at a psychopath. I think of all the people I have come across on YouTube, Jack may be one who is truly dangerous. And that, again, I will gladly admit, is just a gut feeling. Don't ask me to explain WHY I think that.

[rozeboosje]

["looking at a psychopath"] - Not that I am qualified to make such an assessment - that just in addition to what I already said about that being a gut feeling.

[premed2]

Thank you so much for this. You obviously have thought about this much deeper than I. You were very clear; I feel that for the first time I understand why you act toward Jack in the way you do. Thanks again.

[ashaman72]

You're much more patient with him than I would be.

[rozeboosje]

:-)

You might want to check out a playlist I created titled "putting the FUN in FUNdamentalist"

[ashaman72]

Thanks for the recommendation. I've been watching it. I stand by the "patient" comment, because I would have told him to piss off after one video and never bothered engaging with him again.

[rozeboosje]

LOL

I don't see this so much as "engaging" (after all, do you see Jack interacting with this video at all?) but more as my duty to post a response to every video in which Jack tries to paint a picture of himself as a reasonable Christian. There are millions of reasonable Christians. Jack isn't one of them.

[Orygyn]

I love the titles to all of your videos addressed to Jack.

[rozeboosje]

I'm running out of them now :P

[zawam]

WD although reasoning with jack bears little fruit.

[rozeboosje]

See my comment to philhellenes below

[Paxmax]

Wow, your inter-faith diplomacy and stamina is way over awesome-level, I'd say it's over 9000!!!!!

Talking to Jack is like trying to take a seat next to him on a otherwise empty bench, but Jack keeps pushing away anyone who does not embrace his imaginary friends.

Going to be interesting to see how far his imaginary friends will dip you into hell this time.......

[rozeboosje]

:-)

Jack doesn't like hell like that. He prefers to think that we all deserve to suffer eternally bemoaning the absence of his beloved god.

[rozeboosje]

Exactly.

[rozeboosje]

Thank you!

[philhellenes]

What are you doing responding to a video by Jack that is 3 years old?

Oh, I see. He's STILL making that SAME video, STILL making the same statements that have been directly rebutted in video responses 100 times at least. He has even met some YT atheists face to face FFS! UNLESS Healthyaddict and Frisbeesandflipflops spent all their time crying in their coffee Jack doesn't believe what he says. There's a word for that (several actually).

[rozeboosje]

Yup. What I am suspecting is that this may be like a war of attrition. He keeps repeating himself until people get tired of replying to him, with the intention of kidding himself that, having had the "final word" on the matter, he has somehow "won" the debate. I intend to frustrate that.

[AnonEyeMouse]

I'm not sure this is going to work, Pino.

I don't think Jack will accept that your beliefs are right for you because he believes that his is the only way for everyone.

[rozeboosje]

In that case he can go fuck himself.

[Cavetroll100]

This was a well presented video.  Excellent work.

[rozeboosje]

Cheers, even

[HaleyMary]

Great video. Well said. :) I'm not even sure what I would refer to as God, I don't like the Yahweh, Hebrew god, and Jesus says some interesting things that I think could be true from a philosophical viewpoint, but I'm left to be a spiritual agnostic 'cause I think there could be a god or spiritual force out there, but I don't think it's anything that could be known or comprehended easily by the human mind.

[rozeboosje]

Quite

[funkskull]

fuck any tollerance for christians and their influence. if only for the enviromental damage caused by prohibiting birth control

[rozeboosje]

I have no problem with religion, as long as they accept that they will not tell me how I should lead my life. And there can be no compromise on that. Not even a little bit.

[eequalsfb]

I love your videos to TFP.

[rozeboosje]

Thanks!

[iconoclastic23]

I wonder if Jack was presented with a religion that offered more than his version of christianity does, if he'd convert on the spot. If not then he's using an argument that wouldn't work on himself, which makes him a hypocrite.

[rozeboosje]

Very interesting point.

[AbdultheImpailler]

I find it laughable when religious folks demand respect for their beliefs yet too many are not willing to respect our disbelief...and here my parents raised me to think respect is a two way street...I guess they were wrong??? ;-)

[rozeboosje]

Nope, they hit the nail on the head. But methinks that may have been a rhetorical question :P

[YourPrettySmile]

Easily my favorite of all your videos.

[rozeboosje]

:-) Many thanks

[baudiirocz]

This video is a masterpiece!

[rozeboosje]

[bows] we aim to please.

[Mrwrinkleintime]

...Ask Jack to describe God... What God IS in his Mind... I really hope he can go into detail... If not ... He knows not any God .. BTW ... Pino you could have not been any diplomatic... Gotta go .. My tenderloin needs turning, and my wife is baking a carrot cake,,, Incense for the nostrils of God ... Life Is Good !! :)

[ravenslaves]

....carrotcake...?

...God does exist.....if there's carrotcake involved, that is...

[Mrwrinkleintime]

..... OH !!! There Is ... If only I could share it with you... There is plenty,,, You outta see what we got planned for Thanksgiving... WOW... I just got to taste the frosting... Ha Ha ... I am terrible ... :)

[tolarg]

why would it matter if he could describe god? if u ask 20 different people of faith that question there would probably be 20 different answers. is that proof that god exists or not?

[Delinexwow]

its proof there is no one god of the bible. noone has the same god. thats the idea of the question, to understand what THEY mean by god, because the god of the bible is a god of many, as you just pointed out.

[rozeboosje]

I love carrot cake, and the point you make in your comment.

[Katalyzt]

Indeed... Well said rozeboosje. Facts are good ;O) ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[rozeboosje]

Cheers!

[rockerwere]

In the future I plan to quote mine the fuck out of this video. You do realise this right?

Prepare yourself! =P

[rozeboosje]

w00t!