By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why Ricky Gervais is an atheist

ithis on 08 May 2012
yo_john117 said:

I agree with this 100%

I think this quote from George Wald (Nobel prize winner in 1967) speaks quite clearly about why people don't believe in God.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald

 

Nobody is going to be able to change the others mind through debating or arguing. When this thread is over Athiests will think they have won the arguments likewise Christians will also think that they have won the arguments. Neither side can prove with any amount of certainty that the other side is wrong. In the end its simply a faith step. Do you choose to have faith and believe in God or do you choose to have faith to not believe in God. For me personally, it would take more faith to not believe in God then it would take to believe in God. (I'm sure most Athiests feel the same way but with things switched around)

Apparently I used an similar analogy to spontaneous generation without knowing it. But hey, what is the internet for?

Another good read:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_spontaneous_generation_mean



Around the Network
sad.man.loves.vgc on 08 May 2012
Jay520 said:
Let's assume the universe wasn't formed by a series of random events. How does that leave God as the only other possibility?. If the universe must have been created by something, why does that thing have to be God? Why did that thing have to have a conscious? Maybe the thing that started the universe was an object from another universe. There is no reason to believe that the thing that started the universe even had a mind. It could just be a black hole from some other universe that spawned our universe.

There's no reason to believe that the creator was an all-knowing, all-powerful being. No reason at all. It may not have even had a conscious. It may not have even been alive.

And if there were a God, what motive would he have for creating a universe? Love? Passion? Doesn't make sense to me.


That is a very good point. *applauds*



richardhutnik on 08 May 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
richardhutnik said:
And again, I am reminded of this question: Why should I care what Rick Gervais believes or doesn't believe? This would go for most celebrities actually. If you can end up on TMZ, why does what you think matter on areas that are out of your realm of expertise? And if it is said that it is up to the believer to show why they believe, then in keeping with that, I would count arguments by non-believers to be useless, because they don't add anything really. They do nothing to end up showing anything to my satisfaction. It is said you can't really disprove anything absolutely does not exist in this entire universe, so to go hard core that was is absurd.


You could just say that to anyone who's expressing their opinions. You don't have to care, but not doing so makes you seem quite ignorant, don't you think? Democracy is based on caring about everyone's opinions.

No, Democracy is about being able to give everyone a voice, so that they can be included in the decision-making process.  There is nothing in a democratic society that says I have to care about the opinions of people in areas that aren't in their realm of expertise.  I have every right on a personal level to not care about some opinions.  There are some things that aren't useful to put to a vote, like the nature of reality.

Just because an actor expresses an opinion on something, doesn't mean it is worth much.  Same goes with people who post on forums like this.  Some opinions are worth more from actors, if they have a degree of expertise in an area.  Like, if you listen to Ben Stein regarding economics, you would be better off then say listening to the likes of Michael Moore  or Britney Spears.  Or heck, am I supposed to listen to Britney Spears and go along with what she says, in regards to this?

Sorry, but just because someone who has some fame on something, doesn't make them qualified as someone I would listen to or whose opinion I would care about.

The think about Gevais is that he doesn't give anything of value here that would help answer any questions, just a pleading he doesn't know, and old arguments to justify it.   It is all about focusing on his lack of belief, as if his lack of belief is relevant to me.  It isn't relevant.  And I don't have time, or connections to work with him, so I won't.  In short, God is not an area of his expertise, so going to him would be waste of time.  Thus, why should I care what his opinion is?  As he said, it is up to the person of faith to present the evidence.  So, because of this, I would look to them to provide information on the subject matter.



yo_john117 on 08 May 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
yo_john117 said:

I agree with this 100%

I think this quote from George Wald (Nobel prize winner in 1967) speaks quite clearly about why people don't believe in God.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald

 

Nobody is going to be able to change the others mind through debating or arguing. When this thread is over Athiests will think they have won the arguments likewise Christians will also think that they have won the arguments. Neither side can prove with any amount of certainty that the other side is wrong. In the end its simply a faith step. Do you choose to have faith and believe in God or do you choose to have faith to not believe in God. For me personally, it would take more faith to not believe in God then it would take to believe in God. (I'm sure most Athiests feel the same way but with things switched around)

@quote "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose." That's simply not true. The best answer we can give now concerning the origin of life with any certainty is "I don't know", not Spontaneous generation or God (not to mention a personal, benevolent, omnipotent God). There are many theories floating around about the origin of life, and although as I said, we can't yet believe in one with any certainty, this does show that there are far more options than Spontaneous generation or God. Here's a list that summarizes 7 of them.

@bolded I don't get this. I lack a belief in any God because of a lack of evidence. Where is faith involved? I lack a belief in Unicorns because of a lack of evidence. Does that mean I have faith that unicorns don't exist? Ofcourse not. Why doesn't the same apply to God? The burden of proof is on believers, not unbelievers. 

Edit: I hope this doesn't come across as hostile in any way, it's not. I know it's hard not to seem it when debating things like these.

That wasn't entirely my point with the quote. My point was he thought that there were only 2 possibilities as to how life arose (even though I think he's correct and i'll expand on that in a bit) and even though one had been disproven (at least in his time) he would not accept the other option simply because he didn't want to believe in God. I guess I found that just rather ironic and I think stuff like that happens even today for both Christians and Athiests. As for the 2 possibilities , I think he was correct but just didn't really word it right. I think everyone here could agree that the only two possible outcomes to everything as we know it is either A.) An intelligent being created and designed it or B.) It happened randomly or by pure chance.

I know when most people think of the word "faith", they automatically associate it with religion and religion alone. This is simply not true; faith is believing in something that you cannot prove with any amount of certainty. Since there is no way to prove that there isn't a God and that everything happened by chance, believing in that is a faith step and vice versa for belief of God and since both of these are faith based decisions then the burden of proof should be on whichever side is trying to convince the other side that they are wrong. I know one could easily bring up fairytales, flying spaghetti monsters and other things much like that to show how you don't have to prove that they are not real but the comparison to something like that and the existence of God are two very different things. For something like a flying spaghetti monster, the amount of people that believe it is real are probably absolutely miniscule whilst there are millions upon millions that believe in God. Secondly (and more importantly) there isn't even a smidgen of proof that such a being exists (although God could very well have the shape of a flying spaghetti monster ) whilst there are signs and tidbits of proof that point that God (or at the very least an intelligent being) exists.

BTW I didn't find your post to be hostile at all. I think you've been very reasonable and fair in all of your responses in this thread and I really respect that

 

@ithis: That was an interesting read. I especially thought the last bit was accurate:

"Since fossils of microorganisms do not last 4 billion years, there is no direct evidence on any of these questions. That doesn't mean the hypothesis is false, it just means we don't know."

I think the bolded goes to show when it comes to this topic there is no way that either side could come even remotely come close to proving that they are right and it goes to show that all that name-calling that goes on with this type of topic is uneeded (and it's usually the irrational people that end up calling others names). 

The fact that both sides has their fair share of people that think their opinions are automatically right and call people from the other side names speaks wonders.



Jay520 on 08 May 2012

@ Yo_John

I'll just repost this

Let's assume the universe wasn't formed by a series of random events. How does that leave God as the only other possibility?. If the universe must have been created by something, why does that thing have to be God? Why did that thing have to have a conscious? Maybe the thing that started the universe was an object from another universe. There is no reason to believe that the thing that started the universe even had a mind. It could just be a black hole from some other universe that spawned our universe.

There's no reason to believe that the creator was an all-knowing, all-powerful being. No reason at all. It may not have even had a conscious. It may not have even been alive.

And if there were a God, what motive would he have for creating a universe? Love? Passion? Doesn't make sense to me.



Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey on 08 May 2012
yo_john117 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

@quote "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose." That's simply not true. The best answer we can give now concerning the origin of life with any certainty is "I don't know", not Spontaneous generation or God (not to mention a personal, benevolent, omnipotent God). There are many theories floating around about the origin of life, and although as I said, we can't yet believe in one with any certainty, this does show that there are far more options than Spontaneous generation or God. Here's a list that summarizes 7 of them.

@bolded I don't get this. I lack a belief in any God because of a lack of evidence. Where is faith involved? I lack a belief in Unicorns because of a lack of evidence. Does that mean I have faith that unicorns don't exist? Ofcourse not. Why doesn't the same apply to God? The burden of proof is on believers, not unbelievers. 

Edit: I hope this doesn't come across as hostile in any way, it's not. I know it's hard not to seem it when debating things like these.

That wasn't entirely my point with the quote. My point was he thought that there were only 2 possibilities as to how life arose (even though I think he's correct and i'll expand on that in a bit) and even though one had been disproven (at least in his time) he would not accept the other option simply because he didn't want to believe in God. I guess I found that just rather ironic and I think stuff like that happens even today for both Christians and Athiests. As for the 2 possibilities , I think he was correct but just didn't really word it right. I think everyone here could agree that the only two possible outcomes to everything as we know it is either A.) An intelligent being created and designed it or B.) It happened randomly or by pure chance.  I disagree, I don't think it happened purely by chance or an intelligent being created it, I simply don't know. 

I know when most people think of the word "faith", they automatically associate it with religion and religion alone. This is simply not true; faith is believing in something that you cannot prove with any amount of certainty.  This was the type of faith I was referring to. Since there is no way to prove that there isn't a God and that everything happened by chance, believing in that is a faith step and vice versa for belief of God and since both of these are faith based decisions then the burden of proof should be on whichever side is trying to convince the other side that they are wrong.  I'm not trying to convince you that a there is no God, what I'm doing is rejecting your claim and presenting my reasons for rejecting your claim. Asking me to prove Gods non-existence would be shifting the burden of proof, you are making the claim, not me, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I know one could easily bring up fairytales, flying spaghetti monsters and other things much like that to show how you don't have to prove that they are not real but the comparison to something like that and the existence of God are two very different things. For something like a flying spaghetti monster, the amount of people that believe it is real are probably absolutely miniscule whilst there are millions upon millions that believe in God.   Argumentum ad populum Secondly (and more importantly) there isn't even a smidgen of proof that such a being exists (although God could very well have the shape of a flying spaghetti monster ) whilst there are signs and tidbits of proof that point that God (or at the very least an intelligent being) exists.  Could you give me one example of empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for God? 

BTW I didn't find your post to be hostile at all. I think you've been very reasonable and fair in all of your responses in this thread and I really respect that

Coolio :)

I'd like to emphasise what my position is; I'm not asserting that God does not exist, i'm simply rejecting the claims made of its existance, leaving me at the default position which is the lack of belief in God. This could make me either agnostic or atheist I guess, depending on how you define each label. And I think you'll find that most atheists hold the same or a similar position. Whilst having a slightly different viewpoint ot me, even Richard Dawkins doesn't assert that God does not exist.





My Music

yo_john117 on 08 May 2012
Jay520 said:
@ Yo_John

I'll just repost this

Let's assume the universe wasn't formed by a series of random events. How does that leave God as the only other possibility?. If the universe must have been created by something, why does that thing have to be God? Why did that thing have to have a conscious? Maybe the thing that started the universe was an object from another universe. There is no reason to believe that the thing that started the universe even had a mind. It could just be a black hole from some other universe that spawned our universe.

There's no reason to believe that the creator was an all-knowing, all-powerful being. No reason at all. It may not have even had a conscious. It may not have even been alive.

And if there were a God, what motive would he have for creating a universe? Love? Passion? Doesn't make sense to me.

IMO a lot of your points could be put in the "created by random events" category like the black hole example. As for the being or thing that created the universe that my have not had a conscious or may not have even been alive theory can fit very easily in either side (for instance something could have created that creature/thing or it randomly just came into existance and randomly created the universe as we know it).

As for the last question. I honestly don't know and in all likelihood probably never will but for me personally, it makes the most sense out of all the possibilities I'ver heard.



yo_john117 on 08 May 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
yo_john117 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

 

That wasn't entirely my point with the quote. My point was he thought that there were only 2 possibilities as to how life arose (even though I think he's correct and i'll expand on that in a bit) and even though one had been disproven (at least in his time) he would not accept the other option simply because he didn't want to believe in God. I guess I found that just rather ironic and I think stuff like that happens even today for both Christians and Athiests. As for the 2 possibilities , I think he was correct but just didn't really word it right. I think everyone here could agree that the only two possible outcomes to everything as we know it is either A.) An intelligent being created and designed it or B.) It happened randomly or by pure chance.  I disagree, I don't think it happened purely by chance or an intelligent being created it, I simply don't know. 

I know when most people think of the word "faith", they automatically associate it with religion and religion alone. This is simply not true; faith is believing in something that you cannot prove with any amount of certainty.  This was the type of faith I was referring to. Since there is no way to prove that there isn't a God and that everything happened by chance, believing in that is a faith step and vice versa for belief of God and since both of these are faith based decisions then the burden of proof should be on whichever side is trying to convince the other side that they are wrong.  I'm not trying to convince you that a there is no God, what I'm doing is rejecting your claim and presenting my reasons for rejecting your claim. Asking me to prove Gods non-existence would be shifting the burden of proof, you are making the claim, not me, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I know one could easily bring up fairytales, flying spaghetti monsters and other things much like that to show how you don't have to prove that they are not real but the comparison to something like that and the existence of God are two very different things. For something like a flying spaghetti monster, the amount of people that believe it is real are probably absolutely miniscule whilst there are millions upon millions that believe in God.   Argumentum ad populum Secondly (and more importantly) there isn't even a smidgen of proof that such a being exists (although God could very well have the shape of a flying spaghetti monster ) whilst there are signs and tidbits of proof that point that God (or at the very least an intelligent being) exists.  Could you give me one example of empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for God? 

BTW I didn't find your post to be hostile at all. I think you've been very reasonable and fair in all of your responses in this thread and I really respect that

Coolio :)

I'd like to emphasise what my position is; I'm not asserting that God does not exist, i'm simply rejecting the claims made of its existance, leaving me at the default position which is the lack of belief in God. This could make me either agnostic or atheist I guess, depending on how you define each label. And I think you'll find that most atheists hold the same or a similar position. Whilst having a slightly different viewpoint ot me, even Richard Dawkins doesn't assert that God does not exist.



I guess I should have emphasised as well that I'm not trying to make you believe there is a God. I initially just gave my opinion and then you quoted me so I tried to answer your questions and points to the best of my abilities (at least that's what my intentions were).

There is one bit I really worded wrong. When I said "tibits of proof", what I was trying to say and meant was pieces of information that I've heard and things I've experienced in my life that is proof enough for me (and many others to have made the decision there is a God). There is no empirical proof that God exists and I fully accept that...it is after all, my faith step.



Jay520 on 08 May 2012
yo_john117 said:
Jay520 said:
@ Yo_John

I'll just repost this

Let's assume the universe wasn't formed by a series of random events. How does that leave God as the only other possibility?. If the universe must have been created by something, why does that thing have to be God? Why did that thing have to have a conscious? Maybe the thing that started the universe was an object from another universe. There is no reason to believe that the thing that started the universe even had a mind. It could just be a black hole from some other universe that spawned our universe.

There's no reason to believe that the creator was an all-knowing, all-powerful being. No reason at all. It may not have even had a conscious. It may not have even been alive.

And if there were a God, what motive would he have for creating a universe? Love? Passion? Doesn't make sense to me.

IMO a lot of your points could be put in the "created by random events" category like the black hole example. As for the being or thing that created the universe that my have not had a conscious or may not have even been alive theory can fit very easily in either side (for instance something could have created that creature/thing or it randomly just came into existance and randomly created the universe as we know it.)



Exactly. Both sides believe there was something in the beginning that started the universe. My question to people from your PoV is: Why do you think that thing was All-Knowing & All-powerful? (AKA a god). Nothing suggests that it had those traits.

Paul on 08 May 2012
TheProphet said:
The reason Ricky Gervais is an atheist is because he hasn't really bothered to think about it, or being in the entertainment industry he is selling himself to the atheists who control the entertainment industry.

First the intellectual argument. There is plenty of evidence for God in science. One only has to look and think for themselves. The universe has a beginning (how do you know? because the bible says so?). It was created. That agrees with the Bible that was written thousands of years ago. Life is really complicated. The chance of life resulting from random mutations is so low it is ludicrous. The only intelligent explanation is that there is a very intelligence creator (who created the creator? how many tutle shells is he sitting on top of?). The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation (how do you know? where did god come from? Turtle shells?. So Ricky Garvais is dead wrong when he thinks that science does not support a belief in God. I know some scientist believe this, but they are a small group of irrational people. Most intelligent people believe in God (This isn't true and is made up, most of the top scientists are atheists). The argument for atheism from science is not credible (the argument for theism from faith is not credible).

It is more likely that being in the entertainment business, he is just trying to win favour with the people who call the shots. It is well know that entertainment industry is obsessed with sex and therefore has a conflict with the church. Gervias is most likely just shilling for work when he claims to be an athiest. By pleasing his atheist bosses he is more likely to get the work and fame he so strongly desires.

I often wonder which religion is silliest. I tend to go with Mormonism or scientology.