From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Shockofgod an ex-atheist?[edit]

He claims that he was once an atheist in one of his videos. The reason to why he converted to Christianity is because of the words of Jesus and the "evidence" of word of mouth and ancient writings. It's not clear on whether he's telling the truth, but it doesn't really seem that way outside of the video. Does anyone else think he is a liar about his past? He just doesn't seem like I can relate to him. Video can be found here. --BradT (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably lying, but then again, who really cares? Whether he was formerly and Atheist or wheither he's lying (horribly) doesn't make any of his arguments more valid. IAMELIPHAS (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

His question[edit]

He keeps asking "What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?" Is he asking for us to prove a negative? It's exactly asking us to prove that god doesn't exist to prove that atheist are correct. I didn't know whether to mention this on the page or not, but I did find his question rather funny so I wanted to comment on it. How can someone prove a negative? --BradT (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A Negative proof is a common logical fallacy among debaters like Shockofgod, he's asking us for proof for the nonexistence of god. Using that logic one could conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because there is no proof for his nonexistence. --Onion <talk> 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sir, are you claiming that FSM doesn't exist like I think the Christian god doesn't exist? I'm offended beyond using my words, so I'll barrow some. What proof and evidence can you provide that not believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is accurate and correct? --BradT (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
DonExodus2 does a really good parody of this. Se7enEight 02:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it's really good! --BradT (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add on that Edward Current also made a nice parody titled "God Doesn't Exist? Prove It!". It's not directed at Shockofgod like DonExodus2's video, but it's still on the subject of proving a negative. --BradT (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


the link to the shockofgod article at ED was deleted, any objections to removing it?Nailo1 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My main argument is: All negative claims i.e. a compliment of a claim are true until proven false. Atheism, the negative (or compliment) of theism is also hereby true until proven false.

Anyway, I have a question regarding the picture of Shock/Rich Allen, is it allowed to be posted or is he still asking it not be displayed? I got a link here still: Only if he says it is ok. We aren't assholes. It's a crappy picture anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Its truth value is in whether you accept that the absence of a positive claim requires no support; or whether one is warranted in rejecting theism for lack of evidentiary support, which is an easier positive claim to justify; or even whether in light of that lack of support one finds the non-existence if a god more likely, which is a different and stronger claim than the middle one. I've seen the epistemological problem described as one of warrant. I'll look it up again and see if i can find the article I was looking at. Pardon my lack of clarity. I just woke up. Nutty Rouxnever mind 12:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I remembered. The warrant discussion was from an Alvin Plantinga book, so the conclusion was probably that atheism is either unjustified or that the atheist must accept theism as at least as justified. I hate reading fundie apologetics when the author is more reasonable than others, like Plantinga is, so i dnt remember his exact analysis. As I wake up a little more I also realize I both don't care that much and don't want to waste much time on more sophisticated answers to a troll's JAQing off. Nutty Rouxnever mind 12:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The "15 Questions"[edit]

So I've been lurking for a bit (after finding CP first), and been toying with becoming a parodist, etc. Shock's reference to the 15 questions is too ridiculous for me to overlook. I really feel like making a reply video answering all 15 of the damn things. However, I assume he wouldn't allow it as a response? Is it worth it at all? Obviously he wouldn't accept the answers, but at least it could raise some awareness that the answers ARE out there? Eeshwan (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is better to answer the questions to let people know that there is an answer and how illogical Shock's questions are. True he will not accept them without a second thought, but misinformation should be confronted whenever possible. Also, which 15 questions are you referring to? Is it the Question Evolution campaign he is on board? if not, what are the questions and perhaps I (or anyone else) can help. Feredir28 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


After adding infobox, I didn't know where to move Internet template, so I put it next to YouTube. Please move it someplace more appropriate if I screwed up. DasRationalpersone (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

lefayad1991 section[edit]

Since it relates to hate speech in offsite conversation, hacking, & legal action, this section needs a lot more citations, to stay out of libel territory. I also have doubts about how well content like this is serving the RW:MISSIONS. We seem to be documenting the soap opera of YouTubers' interactions with each other as much as their attitudes to religion, science, politics, etc. & If YouTubers (who are basically ordinary folk, not public figures) dig up dirt on each other, I'm not sure than it's particularly ethical for us to condone it by repeating it here. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this go back?[edit]

Should this go back? An unnamed user took the stuff below out:-

There are currently theories being considered by OptimalRidge that may explain the relationship between GodGunsGutsGlory (now GodGunsGutsGlory4KJV), Kassiedill (now LibertyChickLive), Krazie316 and ShockofGod. [1]
Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no it should not. "There are theories" means nothing besides "I heard a rumor that" or "I think." No cites/no evidence? And what the hell is and how does it "explain" anything? And who the fuck are these nameless, faceless people, and who cares about what relationship they might have? P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator

Those two lines actually leave me more confused, so it either needs a more thorough explanation or just consigned to the bin of bullshit. ADK...I'll castigate your lawnmower! 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


This thing is sketchy as (h)ell, not to mention fucked up, psychotic, and possibly illegal. And I haven't even downloaded the file yet (I'm not gonna). --Talpidae (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


It wasn't Shockofgod who threatened him with comments, it was "shockofgod777," who was later revealed to be a troll account of Geoffrey from the "allianceofdemons" channel. redux[edit]

Can somebody who has any idea what that section is about rewrite it in a way that makes sense? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shockumentary section[edit]

Can somebody who knows this story and the names of the people involved re-write it so that it makes more sense? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?? Sam Tally-ho! 02:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Fuckin' A I'm sure. Who the fuck are these people/blogs? I tried to piece together something readable out of what was there, but Christ, it's really not clear. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Edit;[edit]

Edited page for "intolerance toward other religions", specifically about ShockofGod's belief on non-Christian religion, as the wording was incoherent. Slight edit made to reword the sentence and improve the coherence. (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Chris B

Nice job. Sam Tally-ho! 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


Under the Controversy topic, subsection Debate, the first paragraph is confusing. In particular, the part about how SoG posted a video on Lefayad1991's front page (I assume the old YT version) and hid it and put some text... Wha-?! Will someone explain it better? Even picturing how the old YT channels worked, it's confusing how someone can hide something on someone else's channel by using text. I sort of get that SoG used a thumbnail with text, but ... still WAY confusing. Thanks!

"Christianity ended slavery in America."[edit]

Of course the Civil War ended slavery, but Christian clergyman and devout Christians played a very large role in the 19th-century abolitionist movement in America. There wouldn't have been much of an abolitionist movement without them. For example, the Liberty Party (the only abolitionist party that attracted a meaningful number of votes) started out as an almost entirely Christian religious party. AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)