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

Forums - General - Ricky Gervais explaining how he became an Atheist

highwaystar101 on 06 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
tombi123 said:
highwaystar101 said:

With regards to your first point. I don't think that atheism is a term for not believing in anything, it is a term for a theism (or lack of it) viewpoint. Also, I think I would still refer to myself as Atheist and I know many people on these forums have stated they are atheist as opposed to no religious preference

On your second point. I would say one rule that we atheists would follow, would be to believe that which can be proven. This explains why most of us trust science and not something said in a very old book. There are of course many other less significant rules, but that is the main one I present.

 

 

But 'atheists' don't HAVE to trust science. Jews aren't allowed to eat pork, Christians have to go to church onsundays. Atheists don't follow a set of beliefs or have a book to follow.

 

You are fair and correct in stating that Atheists do not have to follow set guidelines. However, I think that there is an unwritten Atheist code. I sure have been scrutinised by Atheists by going against the norm of what Atheists believe, despite being one myself. Besides, at the end of the day I would imagine that the amount that don't trust science is probably akin to the number of Jews that eat pork, or those christians who don't attend Church.

Actually a lot of jews eat pork. Also... most christians i believe don't attend church. Or at least not regularly.

Also feminism isn't a religion yet the biggest problem modern feminism has is there is a scism where both groups of feminists criticize each other and don't work towards goals that still need to be accomplished.

 

Yeah I know, that's what I said.

I know Jews who I've seen eat pork and I know many Christians who do not attend Church.

 

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
tombi123 said:
highwaystar101 said:

With regards to your first point. I don't think that atheism is a term for not believing in anything, it is a term for a theism (or lack of it) viewpoint. Also, I think I would still refer to myself as Atheist and I know many people on these forums have stated they are atheist as opposed to no religious preference

On your second point. I would say one rule that we atheists would follow, would be to believe that which can be proven. This explains why most of us trust science and not something said in a very old book. There are of course many other less significant rules, but that is the main one I present.

 

 

But 'atheists' don't HAVE to trust science. Jews aren't allowed to eat pork, Christians have to go to church onsundays. Atheists don't follow a set of beliefs or have a book to follow.

 

You are fair and correct in stating that Atheists do not have to follow set guidelines. However, I think that there is an unwritten Atheist code. I sure have been scrutinised by Atheists by going against the norm of what Atheists believe, despite being one myself. Besides, at the end of the day I would imagine that the amount that don't trust science is probably akin to the number of Jews that eat pork, or those christians who don't attend Church.

Actually a lot of jews eat pork. Also... most christians i believe don't attend church. Or at least not regularly.

Also feminism isn't a religion yet the biggest problem modern feminism has is there is a scism where both groups of feminists criticize each other and don't work towards goals that still need to be accomplished.

 

Yeah I know, that's what I said.

I know Jews who I've seen eat pork and I know many Christians who do not attend Church.

I'd argue the number of religious people who do those things greatly exceeds the number of people who don't believe in science.

I mean... the number of people who don't believe in science who are religious are rare.

 



ssj12 on 06 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
SciFiBoy said:

@ Kasz216

your post started so well, then you went back to "religous peeps > atheist peeps"

you cannot make that argument from an un-biased logical starting viewpoint, nor can i (nor have i or will i do so) claim that "atheist peeps > religous peeps"

i can only say that i feel that i am right about god not existing, just as you can only say that religous people feel they are right

its not a black and white debate, there can be no winner until we can prove either that God 100% does exist or 100% does not, i know this, why dont you?

Edit: specifically on the issue at hand, you cannot claim that religous people are more altruistic, as it dosent work like that, either people can be altruistic or they cant, id argue that altruism dosent exist, so neither side can be more or less something that dosent exist.

 

I can prove it. If God lives in heaven where is heaven? Where in the universe does heaven exist? Is it invisible?

If Heaven doesn't exist, and also considering the way many religions are now taking science based data in to account, then where is God? If religion takes account of some scientific principles and not others isn't that hypocritical?

By making that arguement your actually ignoring a number of scientific principles.

For one... is that we almost definitly can't perceive all dimensions.  We live in a 3D world but the truth is... there is likely many many more dimensions.  Also electrons that seem to be created out of nothingness...etc.

 

electrons, actually screw these low level particles, super-particles were formed when gravity's bond broke off from the massive energy source which contained gravity, magnetism, and whatever the last bond was (looking up right now, will ed it after I find it).

This cataclysmic event created enough of an eruption of energy it created the super particles, particles as we know (standard protons, electrons, and neutrons), nuclei, and matter. Of course it did also create Dark Matter and Dark Energy which we still have pretty much zero idea what they are other than both are all around us and passing through us.

The only thing is that there are probably other more powerful particles that were created and still probably exist just at an instantly limited amount. These "god" particles were formed in the first few nanoseconds to maybe even three seconds of the big bang. If we can discover what happened and what formed a ton of things could be explained. 

 

We don't even know that.  Nobodys actually proven these things exist.  It just seems likely they exist.

Something is happening and we've decided that an undetectable, unproveable (at this time) has done it.

 

actually we know Dark Matter exists because it bends light.

And what proof is there of Dark Energy?

The closest "proof" they have is that older galaxies were more dense.

Which doesn't actually prove anything.

Also i'd argue that "something" bending light doesn't prove Dark Matter.

1. I agree that dark energy cant be explained but you agree that its pretty much the universal belief until proven wrong.

2. I do want to knw, you probably cant tell me and neither can NASA, are the oldest galaxies we have found colder then our own?

3. I know, but this is another one of those beliefs that fits but just cant be proven.

 

 

You know, we should start a separate topic for this. Would be interesting to discuss what we know and believe could be true about our universe and its formation.

one last thing, with my original post, do you have any idea what I;m missing with the big bang? What is the last bond or two of universal power that I;m missing?

 



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
SciFiBoy said:

@ Kasz216

your post started so well, then you went back to "religous peeps > atheist peeps"

you cannot make that argument from an un-biased logical starting viewpoint, nor can i (nor have i or will i do so) claim that "atheist peeps > religous peeps"

i can only say that i feel that i am right about god not existing, just as you can only say that religous people feel they are right

its not a black and white debate, there can be no winner until we can prove either that God 100% does exist or 100% does not, i know this, why dont you?

Edit: specifically on the issue at hand, you cannot claim that religous people are more altruistic, as it dosent work like that, either people can be altruistic or they cant, id argue that altruism dosent exist, so neither side can be more or less something that dosent exist.

 

I can prove it. If God lives in heaven where is heaven? Where in the universe does heaven exist? Is it invisible?

If Heaven doesn't exist, and also considering the way many religions are now taking science based data in to account, then where is God? If religion takes account of some scientific principles and not others isn't that hypocritical?

By making that arguement your actually ignoring a number of scientific principles.

For one... is that we almost definitly can't perceive all dimensions.  We live in a 3D world but the truth is... there is likely many many more dimensions.  Also electrons that seem to be created out of nothingness...etc.

 

electrons, actually screw these low level particles, super-particles were formed when gravity's bond broke off from the massive energy source which contained gravity, magnetism, and whatever the last bond was (looking up right now, will ed it after I find it).

This cataclysmic event created enough of an eruption of energy it created the super particles, particles as we know (standard protons, electrons, and neutrons), nuclei, and matter. Of course it did also create Dark Matter and Dark Energy which we still have pretty much zero idea what they are other than both are all around us and passing through us.

The only thing is that there are probably other more powerful particles that were created and still probably exist just at an instantly limited amount. These "god" particles were formed in the first few nanoseconds to maybe even three seconds of the big bang. If we can discover what happened and what formed a ton of things could be explained. 

 

We don't even know that.  Nobodys actually proven these things exist.  It just seems likely they exist.

Something is happening and we've decided that an undetectable, unproveable (at this time) has done it.

 

actually we know Dark Matter exists because it bends light.

And what proof is there of Dark Energy?

The closest "proof" they have is that older galaxies were more dense.

Which doesn't actually prove anything.

Also i'd argue that "something" bending light doesn't prove Dark Matter.

1. I agree that dark energy cant be explained but you agree that its pretty much the universal belief until proven wrong.

2. I do want to knw, you probably cant tell me and neither can NASA, are the oldest galaxies we have found colder then our own?

3. I know, but this is another one of those beliefs that fits but just cant be proven.

 

 

You know, we should start a separate topic for this. Would be interesting to discuss what we know and believe could be true about our universe and its formation.

one last thing, with my original post, do you have any idea what I;m missing with the big bang? What is the last bond or two of universal power that I;m missing?

 

I actually think dark energy exists.  My point is just that everyone believes in things that we currently can't prove and may never be able to prove.

Most people don't realize that there are three different things all presented as things we know in science.

Things we know for sure, things we think we know based on the data we have but we have no variables and things we think exist because it makes sense... but we have no proof of.

Atoms being an example of the first, big bang theory being an example of the second and dark energy being an example of the third.



alekth on 07 May 2009

Calling atheism a religion is like discussing the haircut of a bald person.



Around the Network
Rath on 07 May 2009

Some clever stealth trolling there Kasz =P

I also had faith as a child, nobody ever pushed it on me (Dads an atheist and my mum is at most very very weakly religious) but I was given a bible as a little kid and saw no reason not to believe in it, same as Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

I grew up and started thinking and by the age of about eight I just considered it to be a book of fairly interesting stories (specially the walls of Jericho, loved that one).

Also atheism isn't a religion because it lacks dogma (to be an atheist requires no belief in things such as evolution, its just the logical conclusion if you don't believe in god, also in science everything is questionable) and it lacks a belief in the supernatural (some atheists may believe in the supernatural but once again it is certainly not required).



FaRmLaNd on 07 May 2009

I do not have a religion.

The laws I follow are created, interpreted and implemented by the different branches of my government in order to enable my society to run smoothly. If I think a law doesn't work I campaign against it. This has little to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that 21 million people need to live together without complete anarchy.

Other things impacting my lifestyle are my countries culture and theological history. Due to my countries Christian background a lot of laws were created with that morality in mind despite the separation of church and state. I certainly hope that doesn't make me christian! I can't change my countries history! The west is an amalgamation of greek/roman thought and christian theology (plus many other things), that is something out of my power to change. However if I don't agree with something I have no religious affiliations holding me back from being against it.

On another point I know many athiests that don't use science to justify their disbelief in theism, in-fact they couldn't care less about science, they just think God/gods/mysticism is silly.












Kasz216 on 07 May 2009
Rath said:
Some clever stealth trolling there Kasz =P

I also had faith as a child, nobody ever pushed it on me (Dads an atheist and my mum is at most very very weakly religious) but I was given a bible as a little kid and saw no reason not to believe in it, same as Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

I grew up and started thinking and by the age of about eight I just considered it to be a book of fairly interesting stories (specially the walls of Jericho, loved that one).

Also atheism isn't a religion because it lacks dogma (to be an atheist requires no belief in things such as evolution, its just the logical conclusion if you don't believe in god, also in science everything is questionable) and it lacks a belief in the supernatural (some atheists may believe in the supernatural but once again it is certainly not required).

Right... I name 4 postives to being an atheist.  One of them some people see as not a benefit because it's something looked down opon by some people (though still a benefit) and it's steal trolling.

You people really need to give it a rest and stop reading in to shit.

 



megaman79 on 07 May 2009

its alright, u killed the thread. Some of us wanted a free and open opportunity to express our views on Atheists and religion.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

SciFiBoy on 07 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Some clever stealth trolling there Kasz =P

I also had faith as a child, nobody ever pushed it on me (Dads an atheist and my mum is at most very very weakly religious) but I was given a bible as a little kid and saw no reason not to believe in it, same as Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

I grew up and started thinking and by the age of about eight I just considered it to be a book of fairly interesting stories (specially the walls of Jericho, loved that one).

Also atheism isn't a religion because it lacks dogma (to be an atheist requires no belief in things such as evolution, its just the logical conclusion if you don't believe in god, also in science everything is questionable) and it lacks a belief in the supernatural (some atheists may believe in the supernatural but once again it is certainly not required).

Right... I name 4 postives to being an atheist.  One of them some people see as not a benefit because it's something looked down opon by some people (though still a benefit) and it's steal trolling.

You people really need to give it a rest and stop reading in to shit.

 

actually, i think he has a point, if i went into a thread and said "religous people are more selfish than atheists" id expect to get flamed and probably a warning from a mod

funny, how both online and sometimes in real life, its ok for people to insult atheists, but insulting religous people will mean you get attacked, seems like double standards to me

this isnt a specific attack on you kasz, more over its an attack on the system that seems to exist both online and offline, its ok to insult one group of people but not another, i see at as being wrong either way


an example is this: (not neccesarily happened on this forum, but definetley i have seen this happen on other forums i use)

Person 1: Atheists are scum (no action from a mod)
Person 2: Jews are scum (banned, probably permanantley)

the above is just an example, meaning, i dont hate jews, far from it, but im illistrating a point here

see my point, why can people insult my atheism, when i cant insult there religion?

either both are ok, or both are wrong, imo, its the later.