I only care about what a celebrity has to say and think, when they happen to be an area of their expertise.  Why should I care what Gervais has to say about antyhing?

And yes I did.  In both cases they are not experts in what they talk about, and only get interviewed because they are celebrities.  

As far as "knowing what he's talking about" I certainly hope he knows what he doesn't believe in something.  It is sad if someone doesn't, if they just do it for giggles.  Beyond that though, there is nothing Gervais says that hasn't been said dozens of times before, without the patronizing throwing of a bone that he believes in faith.  

Again, what I should care about, if you insist on arguing moral imperatives of should, is should listen to experts in areas, not just someone who is a celebrity who can put together a few sentences and communicate coherently. Anyhow, if you want someone to listen to, who is on the celebrity level in general, I would give you Penn of Penn and Teller.  Feel free to listen to him and become a believer in smaller government, and Libertarian thought.

This is probably the easiest question I've had to answer in this thread. It's simply because it makes the most sense to me.

As time has gone on with my life, I have had to give increasing thought to who I would listen to about what.  I have found, increasingly, that people have a very limited range of information, and it is best to not just listen to, or consider the opinions of anyone about anything.  If I were to just listen to anyone, particularly over the Internet, it would of been in order for me to kill myself to lower someone elses taxes.  So, my filtering has been increasing a lot in regards to a lot of things.

Thanks for the reply, I just thought I would break my reply up into three parts.

...

First, have you heard of M-theory? People have used it to try and explain the origin of our Universe came to be, without the need for god(s). The theory isn't really testable, but it shows that your claim of "If it had a beginning, then it had a creator" is not the only "logical" option.

Which brings me to the point that not everything discovered using science is the "logical conclusion". Very often we find that it is the illogical conclusion that's true once we gather and analyse the evidence. This is the only point when it is valid, because evidence always speaks louder than logic. This was really my point in my original post.

...

Second. Abiogenesis is far better supported than a lot of creationist literature likes to make out. The leading theory for abiogenesis is that self-replicating molecules mutated and eventually formed the first cells. Self replicating molecules have been observed in nature and particularly in lab conditions where they have been proven to mutate and evolve, consistent with this theory.

...

Third. Everything is consistent with a non-designed universe. You only have to look at the organs of any animal to see that. Complex life is imperfect, which would be a consequence of evolution, and not of design.

I honestly don't even know why I come to religion threads anymore. as a logical and rational thinker, I generally hope to be able to spread a bit of knowledge and bring to light the logical fallacies at play, HOPING to at least encourage..something positive, but all I see is wave after wave of irrational thought. Some people are smart (you know who you are), but almost everyone on the religion/god/spiritual side is vomitting words that make no sense.

There are so many logical fallacies at play here that I could write an essay explaining each and every one of them, but deep down inside...I know it won't do any good because, as I've been told many times before, "[we] have a right to believe".

I just want to help people by helping them avoid irrational thought, but people are so aggressive about their rights to ignorance..it's amazing the human race has advanced at all with that kind of attitude.

Thing is logic and rational thinking are merely tools, very useful tools, for helping to determine truth.  They alone don't help to find truth, because truth about reality (a proper view) requires actuall evidence from interacting with the known universe, to be able to arrive at it.  It is this combination of use of reason, and wisdom, combine with the data from interaction with the universe, that helps to determine truth.

Beyond this though, one can end up having valid understanding of things, even if they got there by irrational means.  And if you were to come in, destroy someone's irrational basis for holding what they believe, which actually does produce a good set of values and makes them a better person, you actually have done someone no favors.  

Reality takes you worship of rationality as some sort of ultimate ideal and throws it into a grinder.  I will quote Chesterton here:

Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

This being said, is it a good thing for someone to shun logic and reason, and live in logical falacies?  No.  But don't presume for one minute you think you are helping reality by coming into a religious thread and blabbing about "logic".  Want to help humanity?  Go work in a soup kitchen.   Serve people and do tangible things.  Your desire to "be logical" and persuade others to do is, is just another person who wants to persuade others to their world view.  Well, it is a world view with some nice benefits though.

You're right, it's a waste of time to encourage logic to the religious :P

But seriously, I actually DO participate in my fair share of community service and volunteer work, and no it has nothing to do with parole or anthting, it's completely my own decision. Thing is, my body is strong and willing, but my mind is my greatest asset.  I'm a writer, I'm creative, I love to make the world a better place by spreading knowledge...but so many people are adverse to such things.  So many people, be they atheist or religious, hate the idea of someone coming along and telling them they're wrong, so it becomes a matter of social pride to stick to your guns, even if those guns are faulty.  

Check out the book "Religion as a social phenomenon" to understand what I mean by it.  Basically, the book was explaining in detail how and why religion has persisted long after it had no real purpose in life (laws were formed to cover the ethical side of life, and science has shown us a lot of the world and the universe around us that no longer needs the bibles outdated, archaic claims.  Basically, religion remains popular not becuase it makes sense, but becuase it's such a deeply ingrained part of society that the idea of not being religious is seen as some deep crime or social martyrdom.  Basically it works like fans of a sports team.  the Toronto Maple Leafs (local hockey team) suck pretty bad, yet everyone around here still cheers them on regardless of their quality. it would make the most sense to check the stats and decide what team to follow or respect, but no, we follow the leafs becuase they're local, all our friends follow the leafs, and that's just how it is.  it's not about logic, it's about social pressure and expectations. 

I know sports and religion are NOT the same ball park (hah, punny), but the same logic (or lack thereof) applies.  my deal is that I just wish people would see the fault in the logic and fix it.  with sports teams, it's pretty inconsequential, but with religion...well, people dictate their lives based on what religion they believe.  people determine what is and is not moral based on what the bible says, in america and some middle-eastern nations, religion plays a huge part in the politics and government.  for big deals like that, for situations where people's lives can change or even end thanks to religious belief...I really think that's where we need to draw the line and cut it off.  that's why, when I come to these threads, I Remind myself that if you keep your religion to yourself and use it as a means for hope or strength, then good for you, but you shouldn't be letting it run your life, and that's what I aim to stop. 

Of course, I know damn well that the harder I push the harder they push back, and the less likely it is that anything will change, but a girl can hope. 

Runa, you may want to get ahold of some of Hayek's writings in defense of religion and tradition. The methodologies of religion and tradition, which consists of inspiration, reason, and implementation of tradition (with dealing with its consequences) has ended up producing codes of behavior by means that seem absurd, but which end up working better. The process is not rational. The same could be said for language and other parts of culture also. You follow something rational, and you produces languages like Esperanto, or an ethics system like Objectivism, which culturally are both abominations to some extent.

If you think of all existence as evolutionary, with bits of revolution thrown in, then the process is not rational, or logical at all. It is what it is, with superior methodologies appearing through trial and error on human existence.  The short of it, the process of the generation of human culture is not a rational process at all.  Rationality is part of it, but not the main part.  I believe Star Trek even had Spock in the end saying something like: Reason is the beginning of wisdom.

Edit, and I can close here with more on Chesterton:

santitafarella.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/g-k-chestertons-defense-of-mysticism-and-poetry/

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in the earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. . . . It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand.