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

Forums - General Discussion - Why Ricky Gervais is an atheist

Rath on 06 May 2012
mrstickball said:
pezus said:
mrstickball said:
What about those that say they've seen proof?

The ultimate problem with religion vs. atheism is empiricism. If you believe that everything must be empirical, then by all means, its impossible to prove gods or a God exists.

But if you don't believe that everything is ultimately empirical, it gives you the case for the possibility of the supernatural which is, by definition the antithesis of empiricism since you cannot validate it through scientific means.

If people like Gervais would one day look into the possibility of an irrational, non-empirical entity that defies the scientific method, you may be surprised. Those that hold to the Christian faith do not do so entirely out of pure blindness. There are people that have seen things - supernatural things - that are far and away from explanation or rationalization, but are certain they happen. Are any of these Christians nuts? Absolutely. Are all of them nuts? No. I know what I've seen and experienced in my life, and some of it defies logic and empiricism, but it still happened. That is why I will hold to what I believe irregardless of what Gervais and others believe. I won't reserve vitriol for them, I will respect what they want to believe in their own minds.

What did you see that defies logic?


Instantaneous healing of medically-verifiable broken bones, precognition, physical/visual phenomena, other types of healings, ect. I'd have to think a bit to come up with an exhaustive list of things I've personally seen.

If I expanded the list to family who wouldn't BS, that list to expand significantly to include things like the ability to spontaneously write in ancient languages with perfect prose, spontaneously talk in other languages unknown to speaker, shapeshifting,  demonic possessions (far beyond possible psycological diagnosis), prophecy, and so on.

Over the years, if you're in the right circles, you hear and see a lot, and I mean a lot of things inside or outside of specific kinds of churches. I try to throw out the things that are likely to happen naturally (e.g. "God saved me from a wreck because I clipped an extra coupon before I got into the car").

Then you have all the instances of people that have documented, at least among their family, impossible things to happen naturally such as the case of Todd Burpo. I am not saying his claim is absolutely real, but if it indeed is - and only his family knows - then even the first half of his story is far beyond the realm of what science or empiricism can explain.

Problem is a large number of faiths claim 'miracles' (and people from those faiths claim personal witness of them like you) - many of the faiths also claim that their faith is the only true faith and that all others must be false. That leaves three options really.

1) All the faiths but one that claim miracles are lying

2) Miracles occur in all faiths, thus the claim to being the one true faith is incorrect

3) All miracles are, in fact, not actually miracles and none of the faiths are correct

 

For me it seems the first option is the least likely...



Around the Network
ArnoldRimmer on 06 May 2012

What I don't like about atheists is that they always trying to convince others of their belief. ;)

And while that of course is a joke, there's actually a lot of truth to it. Because at the bottom of the glass filled with atheism always remains a tiiiiiny bit of skepticism. Just like the other way around.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 06 May 2012
ArnoldRimmer said:
What I don't like about atheists is that they always trying to convince others of their belief. ;)

And while that of course is a joke, there's actually a lot of truth to it. Because at the bottom of the glass filled with atheism always remains a tiiiiiny bit of skepticism. Just like the other way around.


Now, let's pretend for one second that no religion has done the same thing during the last thousands of years.



elvenearth on 06 May 2012

With all due respect to Ricky Gervais, the points he makes are not really new and they are nothing that has not been thought of before by Christian thinkers left right and centre. Having thought of such objections or pointers such Christian thinkers have not wilted away in defeat and self-castigation: rather they have considered interesting answers to all such questions.
Now, this does not make them necessarily right - especially from the point of view of a seeker - but the idea that somehow Christians have not met and considered and answered each and every criticism possible is a little silly. By Christians, I don't mean each and every Christian one may meet - many would find various criticisms or questions hard to answer - but certainly Christian philosophers, theologians etc have.

It is important for any mind emerging into the world of ideas to realise that there have been plenty of minds just like yours before and they have usually considered anything you might have considered and thought possible (or not). People really need to stop assuming they are making brilliant and amazingly deep points. If you really want to find out whether Christianity (or indeed some other worldview is true) then find its strongest proponents and thinkers and its strongest arguments and defenses. Until then, one has no claim to speak authoritatively on matters they haven't really investigated properly. That includes the comedian Ricky Gervais. Love the guy, would advise him to confront real thinkers rather than strawmen (that's one does if one is actually properly and really interested in truth).



JLR

Scoobes on 06 May 2012
mrstickball said:
pezus said:
mrstickball said:
What about those that say they've seen proof?

The ultimate problem with religion vs. atheism is empiricism. If you believe that everything must be empirical, then by all means, its impossible to prove gods or a God exists.

But if you don't believe that everything is ultimately empirical, it gives you the case for the possibility of the supernatural which is, by definition the antithesis of empiricism since you cannot validate it through scientific means.

If people like Gervais would one day look into the possibility of an irrational, non-empirical entity that defies the scientific method, you may be surprised. Those that hold to the Christian faith do not do so entirely out of pure blindness. There are people that have seen things - supernatural things - that are far and away from explanation or rationalization, but are certain they happen. Are any of these Christians nuts? Absolutely. Are all of them nuts? No. I know what I've seen and experienced in my life, and some of it defies logic and empiricism, but it still happened. That is why I will hold to what I believe irregardless of what Gervais and others believe. I won't reserve vitriol for them, I will respect what they want to believe in their own minds.

What did you see that defies logic?


Instantaneous healing of medically-verifiable broken bones, precognition, physical/visual phenomena, other types of healings, ect. I'd have to think a bit to come up with an exhaustive list of things I've personally seen.

If I expanded the list to family who wouldn't BS, that list to expand significantly to include things like the ability to spontaneously write in ancient languages with perfect prose, spontaneously talk in other languages unknown to speaker, shapeshifting,  demonic possessions (far beyond possible psycological diagnosis), prophecy, and so on.

Over the years, if you're in the right circles, you hear and see a lot, and I mean a lot of things inside or outside of specific kinds of churches. I try to throw out the things that are likely to happen naturally (e.g. "God saved me from a wreck because I clipped an extra coupon before I got into the car").

Then you have all the instances of people that have documented, at least among their family, impossible things to happen naturally such as the case of Todd Burpo. I am not saying his claim is absolutely real, but if it indeed is - and only his family knows - then even the first half of his story is far beyond the realm of what science or empiricism can explain.

The problem with this is that there's a gap between unexplained events such as you're describing and a belief in a particular religion/god.

Every religion and culture claims to have seen supernatural phenomena, but it takes a small leap of faith to attribute something that is currently unexplained to god. The scientific method is a slow, drawn-out process so a lot will be unexplained for a long time, but considerring how wacky we're finding the realms of quantum physics, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few hundred years time we do discover explainations to what you and others have observed.

I suppose my point is no one knows what causes those unexplained phenomena (although honestly, if put to full scrutiny I suspect some would be explained), but religion/god doesn't necessarrily give the answer.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
mrstickball on 06 May 2012
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
mrstickball said:
pezus said:
mrstickball said:
What about those that say they've seen proof?

The ultimate problem with religion vs. atheism is empiricism. If you believe that everything must be empirical, then by all means, its impossible to prove gods or a God exists.

But if you don't believe that everything is ultimately empirical, it gives you the case for the possibility of the supernatural which is, by definition the antithesis of empiricism since you cannot validate it through scientific means.

If people like Gervais would one day look into the possibility of an irrational, non-empirical entity that defies the scientific method, you may be surprised. Those that hold to the Christian faith do not do so entirely out of pure blindness. There are people that have seen things - supernatural things - that are far and away from explanation or rationalization, but are certain they happen. Are any of these Christians nuts? Absolutely. Are all of them nuts? No. I know what I've seen and experienced in my life, and some of it defies logic and empiricism, but it still happened. That is why I will hold to what I believe irregardless of what Gervais and others believe. I won't reserve vitriol for them, I will respect what they want to believe in their own minds.

What did you see that defies logic?


Instantaneous healing of medically-verifiable broken bones, precognition, physical/visual phenomena, other types of healings, ect. I'd have to think a bit to come up with an exhaustive list of things I've personally seen.

If I expanded the list to family who wouldn't BS, that list to expand significantly to include things like the ability to spontaneously write in ancient languages with perfect prose, spontaneously talk in other languages unknown to speaker, shapeshifting,  demonic possessions (far beyond possible psycological diagnosis), prophecy, and so on.

Over the years, if you're in the right circles, you hear and see a lot, and I mean a lot of things inside or outside of specific kinds of churches. I try to throw out the things that are likely to happen naturally (e.g. "God saved me from a wreck because I clipped an extra coupon before I got into the car").

Then you have all the instances of people that have documented, at least among their family, impossible things to happen naturally such as the case of Todd Burpo. I am not saying his claim is absolutely real, but if it indeed is - and only his family knows - then even the first half of his story is far beyond the realm of what science or empiricism can explain.


I know Muslims who claim they have seen "proof", I am pretty sure If I lived in a jewish country around jewish people I'll also meet people who have seen it.

I am not saying you guys didn't see it but this brings up many points but I'll just ask this,  all religions can be true because their followers have seeen the proof, which one I am supposed to follow? "Impossible things" happen not to Christians only, how can you imply that they happened to you because you you are on the right path?

edit:

And to make my point clearer, we have a very well-respected member on this site who is a Muslim who says his religion was reinforced when he witnessed a demonic possession and exorcism of a loved one. He told the story multiple times on this site, so I'll refrain from mentioning his name. The point is unnatural things (or coincidences?) happen to some people. However, even if we assume they are clues to God existence, they don't indicate which religion is true.

If they've seen undeniable proof of their God in some way, I will let Him sort that out when its all over. For now, I can only believe in what I've seen, experienced and have known forn a very long time.

How do I know they happened because I'm on the right path? I don't believe God would magically decide to answer an impossible prayer at exactly the right moment because He wanted to lead me astray. I mean, if I was going the wrong way, I don't think he'd decide to heal broken bones instantaneously because he decided to host an episode of "Punk'd"



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 06 May 2012
Rath said:
mrstickball said:
pezus said:
mrstickball said:
What about those that say they've seen proof?

The ultimate problem with religion vs. atheism is empiricism. If you believe that everything must be empirical, then by all means, its impossible to prove gods or a God exists.

But if you don't believe that everything is ultimately empirical, it gives you the case for the possibility of the supernatural which is, by definition the antithesis of empiricism since you cannot validate it through scientific means.

If people like Gervais would one day look into the possibility of an irrational, non-empirical entity that defies the scientific method, you may be surprised. Those that hold to the Christian faith do not do so entirely out of pure blindness. There are people that have seen things - supernatural things - that are far and away from explanation or rationalization, but are certain they happen. Are any of these Christians nuts? Absolutely. Are all of them nuts? No. I know what I've seen and experienced in my life, and some of it defies logic and empiricism, but it still happened. That is why I will hold to what I believe irregardless of what Gervais and others believe. I won't reserve vitriol for them, I will respect what they want to believe in their own minds.

What did you see that defies logic?


Instantaneous healing of medically-verifiable broken bones, precognition, physical/visual phenomena, other types of healings, ect. I'd have to think a bit to come up with an exhaustive list of things I've personally seen.

If I expanded the list to family who wouldn't BS, that list to expand significantly to include things like the ability to spontaneously write in ancient languages with perfect prose, spontaneously talk in other languages unknown to speaker, shapeshifting,  demonic possessions (far beyond possible psycological diagnosis), prophecy, and so on.

Over the years, if you're in the right circles, you hear and see a lot, and I mean a lot of things inside or outside of specific kinds of churches. I try to throw out the things that are likely to happen naturally (e.g. "God saved me from a wreck because I clipped an extra coupon before I got into the car").

Then you have all the instances of people that have documented, at least among their family, impossible things to happen naturally such as the case of Todd Burpo. I am not saying his claim is absolutely real, but if it indeed is - and only his family knows - then even the first half of his story is far beyond the realm of what science or empiricism can explain.

Problem is a large number of faiths claim 'miracles' (and people from those faiths claim personal witness of them like you) - many of the faiths also claim that their faith is the only true faith and that all others must be false. That leaves three options really.

1) All the faiths but one that claim miracles are lying

2) Miracles occur in all faiths, thus the claim to being the one true faith is incorrect

3) All miracles are, in fact, not actually miracles and none of the faiths are correct

 

For me it seems the first option is the least likely...

Like I said to Scoobes, I will let God sort out who believes in the right path and right religion. The Bible says to work out your faith with fear and trembling. That is, to take it very seriously. I will take what I believe seriously, and will let God prove himself to those that see miracles in other faiths.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 06 May 2012
Scoobes said:
mrstickball said:
pezus said:
mrstickball said:
What about those that say they've seen proof?

The ultimate problem with religion vs. atheism is empiricism. If you believe that everything must be empirical, then by all means, its impossible to prove gods or a God exists.

But if you don't believe that everything is ultimately empirical, it gives you the case for the possibility of the supernatural which is, by definition the antithesis of empiricism since you cannot validate it through scientific means.

If people like Gervais would one day look into the possibility of an irrational, non-empirical entity that defies the scientific method, you may be surprised. Those that hold to the Christian faith do not do so entirely out of pure blindness. There are people that have seen things - supernatural things - that are far and away from explanation or rationalization, but are certain they happen. Are any of these Christians nuts? Absolutely. Are all of them nuts? No. I know what I've seen and experienced in my life, and some of it defies logic and empiricism, but it still happened. That is why I will hold to what I believe irregardless of what Gervais and others believe. I won't reserve vitriol for them, I will respect what they want to believe in their own minds.

What did you see that defies logic?


Instantaneous healing of medically-verifiable broken bones, precognition, physical/visual phenomena, other types of healings, ect. I'd have to think a bit to come up with an exhaustive list of things I've personally seen.

If I expanded the list to family who wouldn't BS, that list to expand significantly to include things like the ability to spontaneously write in ancient languages with perfect prose, spontaneously talk in other languages unknown to speaker, shapeshifting,  demonic possessions (far beyond possible psycological diagnosis), prophecy, and so on.

Over the years, if you're in the right circles, you hear and see a lot, and I mean a lot of things inside or outside of specific kinds of churches. I try to throw out the things that are likely to happen naturally (e.g. "God saved me from a wreck because I clipped an extra coupon before I got into the car").

Then you have all the instances of people that have documented, at least among their family, impossible things to happen naturally such as the case of Todd Burpo. I am not saying his claim is absolutely real, but if it indeed is - and only his family knows - then even the first half of his story is far beyond the realm of what science or empiricism can explain.

The problem with this is that there's a gap between unexplained events such as you're describing and a belief in a particular religion/god.

Every religion and culture claims to have seen supernatural phenomena, but it takes a small leap of faith to attribute something that is currently unexplained to god. The scientific method is a slow, drawn-out process so a lot will be unexplained for a long time, but considerring how wacky we're finding the realms of quantum physics, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few hundred years time we do discover explainations to what you and others have observed.

I suppose my point is no one knows what causes those unexplained phenomena (although honestly, if put to full scrutiny I suspect some would be explained), but religion/god doesn't necessarrily give the answer.

I would say that you're correct that we don't know what all is out there - with other dimensions, quantumn physics, and the like. That may play a part of it. But alternatively, what if God works supernaturally through such things, and that those realms are merely the conduit of how he works?

Yes, I believe some if not many "Miracles" can be explained by the scientific method - even if its through things we can't verifiy empirically yet. But the key is "many", not all. That is what makes empiricism useless in the argument of supernatural pheonmena. Even if 99% can be explained, you still have that 1% that is impossible to explain via science, which causes the scientific method to be flawed when people like Gervais require it to be able to explain and define God.

I mean, if someone walked up to you - someone you trusted - and said that he heard "God" speak to him, (this God being someone he trusted and believed existed), and God told this person audiably to find a phone directory call a specific business 10,000 miles away, only for the man to do that and find his long-lost daughter visiting that business for the first time in her life. Do you know what the probability of such an event happening is? The likelihood of such an event occurring is impossible - but with God, I've seen such people talk about these kinds of miracles very often.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 06 May 2012
mrstickball said:

I would say that you're correct that we don't know what all is out there - with other dimensions, quantumn physics, and the like. That may play a part of it. But alternatively, what if God works supernaturally through such things, and that those realms are merely the conduit of how he works?

Yes, I believe some if not many "Miracles" can be explained by the scientific method - even if its through things we can't verifiy empirically yet. But the key is "many", not all. That is what makes empiricism useless in the argument of supernatural pheonmena. Even if 99% can be explained, you still have that 1% that is impossible to explain via science, which causes the scientific method to be flawed when people like Gervais require it to be able to explain and define God.

I mean, if someone walked up to you - someone you trusted - and said that he heard "God" speak to him, (this God being someone he trusted and believed existed), and God told this person audiably to find a phone directory call a specific business 10,000 miles away, only for the man to do that and find his long-lost daughter visiting that business for the first time in her life. Do you know what the probability of such an event happening is? The likelihood of such an event occurring is impossible - but with God, I've seen such people talk about these kinds of miracles very often.


That is where you are wrong. There is an unimaginably small possibility that this will happen, and when it actually does it is often considered a miracle by believers. It wouldn't make sense if we noticed every single likely thing that happens, but the few extremely unlikely things that happens are so hard to understand that some people choose to explain them through an almighty deity, while others choose quantum mechanics or simply don't make up their mind and would rather remain unknowing than choose an unproven answer.



mrstickball on 06 May 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
mrstickball said:

I would say that you're correct that we don't know what all is out there - with other dimensions, quantumn physics, and the like. That may play a part of it. But alternatively, what if God works supernaturally through such things, and that those realms are merely the conduit of how he works?

Yes, I believe some if not many "Miracles" can be explained by the scientific method - even if its through things we can't verifiy empirically yet. But the key is "many", not all. That is what makes empiricism useless in the argument of supernatural pheonmena. Even if 99% can be explained, you still have that 1% that is impossible to explain via science, which causes the scientific method to be flawed when people like Gervais require it to be able to explain and define God.

I mean, if someone walked up to you - someone you trusted - and said that he heard "God" speak to him, (this God being someone he trusted and believed existed), and God told this person audiably to find a phone directory call a specific business 10,000 miles away, only for the man to do that and find his long-lost daughter visiting that business for the first time in her life. Do you know what the probability of such an event happening is? The likelihood of such an event occurring is impossible - but with God, I've seen such people talk about these kinds of miracles very often.


That is where you are wrong. There is an unimaginably small possibility that this will happen, and when it actually does it is often considered a miracle by believers. It wouldn't make sense if we noticed every single likely thing that happens, but the few extremely unlikely things that happens are so hard to understand that some people choose to explain them through an almighty deity, while others choose quantum mechanics or simply don't make up their mind and would rather remain unknowing than choose an unproven answer.

Then what is the percentage of it being possible through sheer chance? About 1 in 1 billion? I will admit that is a possibility, but then that also means there is a billion to 1 chance that it was indeed supernatural. I think I'd take those odds, which is why I believe supernatural events do occur.

If I took every story I've heard from people I trust - only people with sound minds and are trustworthy - I'd have more than a few of these "billion to one" stories. At some point, you stop trying to rationalize every situation and come to the conclusion that there may be more out there to believe in than no God existing, especially when the kinds of people that go through these events go through them somewhat often.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.