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

mrstickball on 06 May 2012
Mummelmann 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.

Family and loved ones agreeing that miracles have taken place? This is nothing new anywhere in the world. Sadly, human eyewitness accounts aren't worth very much and are even taking a backseat in courts of law today since they are often faulty, obscured, biased or all of the above.

I'm not discrediting anyone's experiences with what could be percieved as extraordinary or even supernatural but anything that a small or large group or individual with a religious or otherwise similar conviction tells me or anyone else about miracles and happenings to support their faith isn't worth a whole lot. Perhaps even nothing. They're just words that anyone can say. "Why would people lie or convince themselves that this happened if it didn't?" The answer to that is obvious.

When I grew up and we started school at around age seven, the church gave us a book with bible stories in it. I liked the book, it had nice drawings and some of the stories were pretty exciting. But, even then, I understood that they were just stories and not recited, actual history.

To each his own I suppose but there is no chance of anyone swaying the other side into their belief (or lack thereof), which is fine by me. I don't need the world to be atheistic, not even one bit, I just need people to understand that fantastic claims will always be dubious at best, especially when absolutely none of them can be proven (take the James Randi test for one example).


I was merely presenting part of the other side of the argument. I know what I say isn't going to likely sway anyone, but given that most religion threads are "Bash the Christian believers because they are irrational and illogical", my thought was that it needed defended at least once in some way. My whole argument centered around empiricism. If you must have absolute proof before you give any faith, you're going to likely never find God. If you give any faith, you're going to find absolute proof, I believe. And thats the ultimate point of debate, IMO.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Mummelmann on 06 May 2012
mrstickball said:
Mummelmann 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.

Family and loved ones agreeing that miracles have taken place? This is nothing new anywhere in the world. Sadly, human eyewitness accounts aren't worth very much and are even taking a backseat in courts of law today since they are often faulty, obscured, biased or all of the above.

I'm not discrediting anyone's experiences with what could be percieved as extraordinary or even supernatural but anything that a small or large group or individual with a religious or otherwise similar conviction tells me or anyone else about miracles and happenings to support their faith isn't worth a whole lot. Perhaps even nothing. They're just words that anyone can say. "Why would people lie or convince themselves that this happened if it didn't?" The answer to that is obvious.

When I grew up and we started school at around age seven, the church gave us a book with bible stories in it. I liked the book, it had nice drawings and some of the stories were pretty exciting. But, even then, I understood that they were just stories and not recited, actual history.

To each his own I suppose but there is no chance of anyone swaying the other side into their belief (or lack thereof), which is fine by me. I don't need the world to be atheistic, not even one bit, I just need people to understand that fantastic claims will always be dubious at best, especially when absolutely none of them can be proven (take the James Randi test for one example).


I was merely presenting part of the other side of the argument. I know what I say isn't going to likely sway anyone, but given that most religion threads are "Bash the Christian believers because they are irrational and illogical", my thought was that it needed defended at least once in some way. My whole argument centered around empiricism. If you must have absolute proof before you give any faith, you're going to likely never find God. If you give any faith, you're going to find absolute proof, I believe. And thats the ultimate point of debate, IMO.


That is something where we all have to fundamentally agree, such is the nature of faith. I really do appreciate the input, too many people write with fire and brimstone and simply condemn other views and impose their own.

I think what I'm trying to say is; a lot of people have found their faith but I probably never will.



TheProphet on 06 May 2012

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. 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. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. 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. The argument for atheism from science 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.



richardhutnik on 06 May 2012
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?

Scientifically, things in quantum mechanics, like entanglement, end up defying logic.  There is just a number of wacky and weird things out there that just defy one's expectations.

Anyhow, just my take on it, observing that empircal evidence and logic aren't necessarily in agreement all the time.



TadpoleJackson on 06 May 2012

I haven't read the topic nor care to. I just came to say, people shouldn't listen to Gervais, you should ignore him. Maybe then he will realize he is a horrid actor, and just stop.



Around the Network
Mummelmann on 06 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. 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. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. 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. The argument for atheism from science 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.

Are you for real? I hope not.



Scoobes on 06 May 2012
Mummelmann said:
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. 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. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. 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. The argument for atheism from science 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.

Are you for real? I hope not.

New user; first post... I'm guessing not.




Get your Portable ID!

Andrespetmonkey on 06 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. 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. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. 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. The argument for atheism from science 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.

That's some strong crack you're smoking



My Music

Blacksaber on 06 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. 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. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. 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. The argument for atheism from science 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.

Stop that right now, we Jews control the entertainment industry not atheists get your facts straight.



Former something....

TheProphet on 06 May 2012

To those of you who don't know any history, or understand the way a modern secular society works let me explain. Yes the people in control of the mainstream entertainment industry are not followers of the Bible. I think any reasonable person would agree to that. Since most of you don't know what's in the Bible let me explain. The Bible preaches monogamy. Do you know what that means? That means no sex outside marriage, Now I know you are familiar with modern movies. How many of them show sex only after marriage. As a percentage, I would estimate about zero. So no, the people who make movies do not follow the Bible. That is quite clear from their track record. It is a verifiable fact.

As to creation, the Bible does not give a date. Some people have tried to use the Bible to make that calculation many years ago. However, nowhere does the Bible say just how long ago. The Bible does say emphatically that God created the universe. NASA has discovered the age of the universe. It has a beginning, therefore it was created. If you believe that the universe created itself out of nothing then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. Something does not come from nothing. Where did all the matter come from?" An where did intelligence come from? There is no law of physics that says that life, and especial intelligence, will come into being. That's like saying that there is a law of nature that turns rocks into brains. It is false. There is no such law.

btw, 'Are you for real' is not a very convincing argument.

As to creation