As a kid:

- C64 BASIC interpreter
- Pascal

As a teenager/student/intern:

- Perl scripts
- Java
- x86 ASM
- C

20 years later, in video game development:

- C++ (/14, /17) for PC and console game clients
- HLSL for GPU shaders
- Python for support scripts and build systems
- Typescript/JavaScript for web client games
- C# for Unity games

Not me, but some of our backend server guys even use Go.

This is funny. Had to learn Cobol at school - lab still had a punch card machine and that was late 1980s.
Basic, obviously.
ZX Spectrum (Z80 assembly) - dissassembled and adapted a word processor for Czech - drew the extra characters and made up a printer spooler - that was the most fun with a computer ever, also I was young and had time. Also hated re-typing on a typewriter.
First thing (literally the first thing) after the iron curtain dropped got a PC and tried Pascal, databases and web-development but dropped out of all that in early 90s.
Doom, Quake, Civ, Sim City. Mostly scripts with some disassembly and poking around. Various scripts are the only programming I do now.

1980:
TRS-DOS BASIC
Z80 Assembly
Pascal
COBOL
FORTRAN
Weeping bitterly because the idea of an IDE is like a bazillion years in the future.

Apple 2 BASIC. In college: Pascal, C, C++, & ASM (ugh). I didn't like coding at all. I love breaking stuff though as a QA tester!

1982Q3-1993Q2
Basic
Pascal
Assembler
C++

Did not go for CompSci degree/career.

From the YT Description:
Pascal, a stray puppy from Turkey, was at the wrong place at the wrong time, when two twisted children started torturing the helpless dog.

He was only four months old when a rescue team found him in an industrial building and brought Pascal to He’Art of Rescue organization in Istanbul, Turkey. The kids did a lot of terrible things to the poor dog, and even covered the fellow in industrial glue.

The glue acted like cement and Pascal was so stiff he could basically move only his tongue. The staff at the facility shaved off the glue, along with twigs and mud that was stuck to Pascals fur. His skin was raw, pulsing with red wounds. It suffered significant damage from the chemicals, so the pup had to undergo a series of medical baths to recover.

Blast from the past, I miss my VIC-20. I learned to program in BASIC on it, that 3.5K of RAM was painful. So you gave variables one or two-letter names and borrowed the screen memory when you didn't have to display anything.

My teacher at the time despised BASIC and told me to learn Pascal. I finally understood his contempt when my first computer job involved reverse-engineering somebody's BASIC spaghetti code on a Kaypro computer.

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

er, by the time of the Last Crusade, Indy has seen:
- the literal manifestation of the power of god melt Nazis faces
- some magic rocks burning an Indian guy

I think it's pretty safe to say that Indy has accepted that in his fictional universe, the supernatural is real. Hell, if I saw what he'd seen by that point, I'd be a god-fearing Christian.

As for Pascal's wager, I've always viewed it as the height of moral cowardice. If you want to believe in God and you're not shoving your beliefs down everyone else's throat (looking at you, ISIS, evangelicals, catholic church in Ireland, etc), go nuts.

But don't believe because you're afraid of hell. If you're a good person and you die and it turns out there is a god, if he condemns you to eternal suffering for not believing in him, then fuck him, he's an asshole and I wouldn't want to spend eternity under his thumb anyway.

Ahh, Pascals Wager, eh?

The ultimate in moral cowardice: don't live your life as a good person for it's own sake. Do it because scary sky father says so.

No thanks. I'll continue to treat people as decent humans regardless of who they love.

And on the off chance I end up in front of your god when I die, I will ask him who the hell he thinks he is to judge me.

Pineapple lumps http://www.amazon.com/Pascalls-Pascal-Pineapple-Lumps-140g/dp/B009SM8G0M

That's it completely. It's all part of whole spiritual ranking system. some people just measure themselves not by where they are at, but by how many people, they think, they're better off than.

To be fair though, that's not a religious thing, that's just the human condition. we all have at one point said "wow, at least I don't have it as bad as THAT guy"

It's also just one big pascal's wager. Better believe, or else you'll be left behind. Shaming people into compliance. But wait, if a god is all knowing, isn't that god going to know who actually believes vs people who only believe because they fear the consequences?

The many problems fear-based rule systems.

Of course, after watching South Park's depiction of heaven, I never really cared if I ever got left behind:

it goes even further than that. Any person truly honest with themselves or has even the least bit a questioning mind at least asks themselves at one point "hey what if I'm wrong" I think pretty much every non-believer ever has asked themselves that question COUNTLESS times. And I think almost every one of them has come up with the answer that even if there is a creator, it's STILL a fucked up system and then you run into Pascal's wager where people are just believing out of fear or to cover their asses, which supposedly God can see right through that anyway so pretty much everyone ever born goes to hell.

It's virtually impossible for some people to question authority. God exists because their parents told them so and that's it. It shocks me to this day how many people don't know how to think critically or don't know what logical fallacies are.

I still remember one of the most important lessons I learned in high school from my calculus teacher. You have to learn how to learn. A teacher can teach you things and you can regurgitate them on command, but at some point you have to move past that and become your own teacher and become a problem solver.

All in all, I don't have a problem with religious people as a whole. There are plenty of religious people out there that are willing to live and let live and think god is based on love and not fear and those who think differently are not a threat. It's those...other people that try to legislate their religion that are a problem.

The question seems pretty inane to me. I mean, are we talking about a sort of pascal's wager thing here or are we literally asking what the null hypothesis of atheism is?

The consequences of being wrong shouldn't have any impact on your decision. It is not evidence one way or the other. If you want to get really existential you might as well ask, "What if I am wrong about ME existing".

@shinyblurry: "What is the specific time that he uses this fallacy?"
Try most of the first 22-23 minutes.

I went into this giving it all the benefit of the doubt that this could actually contain some form of argument, but after watching it all I can say is:

Is that really the best you could find, shinyblurry? A guy that rambles on and on about one anecdote or other, trying his best to associate atheism with the attrocities committed during the 20th century, just to setup this old strawman that without god there are no morals, no rules, no hope, no purpose of ones life?
Sprinkling his drivel with a few quotemines; shifting the burden of proof.
Only to top the cake off with Pascal's Wager...

That's weak, man.