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

Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Kasz216 said:

That's not what i claimed.  Your drawing conclusions where they aren't.

See the post i just made in response to SciFiboy.

Also yes.  An advantage to being white is that your more likely to get an education... and a better quality edcuation at that.

You don't think that's an advantage of being white?  White people are more likely to have transitive wealth, or luck into it because white people generally date white people.  This gives them advantages in educations.

It's an advantage to being white.

I don't believe in shying away from things because it's not politically correct.

 

And yet I don't see you posting negative statistics about the religious every time these topics come up.

Making less money isn't a negative statistic?  It was in the exact same sentence!

 



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 06 May 2009

@ 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.



Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
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?


How so?

Religious people are more organized... that's a fact.  I mean religious people have to go to church. (or a lot do.)

As such... information is spread more eaisly... and it's easier to coordinate effort.

increased coordination leads to increased giving.

How does any of that suggest that religious people are better then atheist people?

It just sugegsts that religious people have a head start.

I mean think about it... how much more work would it be for you to notify the same number of people of a charity work then someone who can just tell their pastor?

A lot of people don't even know 80% of the people that go to their church.  You'd have to go door to door, or make signs or send a chain email or something.

Charitable giving goes up when the act of giving is made easier... and when people are made aware of more charities.



megaman79 on 06 May 2009
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?



“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 06 May 2009
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?

 

agian, me = atheist, lol

thats a good argument agianst, but most religous peeps will say "heaven exists outside of the observable universe" or something to that effect, which is hard to counter, as like i said, we have no proof either way!



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
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.

 



tombi123 on 06 May 2009
highwaystar101 said:
I agree with mr.stickball. I think it would be fair to say that any formal group of people with the same religious theology (or lack of it) could be called a religion.

At the end of the day, if someone asked me my religion I would not say none, I would say Atheist. I'm sure many atheists would

 

 I would say none. The word 'atheist' shouldn't even exist. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Apart from a dis-belief in God, can you tell me one rule/moral code that all 'atheist' follow?



Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
tombi123 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I agree with mr.stickball. I think it would be fair to say that any formal group of people with the same religious theology (or lack of it) could be called a religion.

At the end of the day, if someone asked me my religion I would not say none, I would say Atheist. I'm sure many atheists would

 

 I would say none. The word 'atheist' shouldn't even exist. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Apart from a dis-belief in God, can you tell me one rule/moral code that all 'atheist' follow?

Most people don't believe in Harry Potter or Santa Claus

If your opinion is divergent from the mainstream your viewpoint is going to be given a name.

 



megaman79 on 06 May 2009
tombi123 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I agree with mr.stickball. I think it would be fair to say that any formal group of people with the same religious theology (or lack of it) could be called a religion.

At the end of the day, if someone asked me my religion I would not say none, I would say Atheist. I'm sure many atheists would

 

I would say none. The word 'atheist' shouldn't even exist. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Apart from a dis-belief in God, can you tell me one rule/moral code that all 'atheist' follow?

 

Accepted moral standards in their culture. ie. christian values, atleast to some degree, in Western countries. If not those the ones chosen by government, which inturn are dictated by elected representitives of the religious majority.



“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 06 May 2009
megaman79 said:
tombi123 said:

 

I would say none. The word 'atheist' shouldn't even exist. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Apart from a dis-belief in God, can you tell me one rule/moral code that all 'atheist' follow?

 

Accepted moral standards in their culture. ie. christian values, atleast to some degree, in Western countries. If not those the ones chosen by government, which inturn are dictated by elected representitives of the religious majority.

 

nah, i got my morals from Star Trek: The Next Generation

the above is actually pretty accurate, most of my views are heavily influenced by that show as i watched it ALOT when growing up and when i abandoned the religious dogma of my early youth (i became an atheist around 13 years old)

i dont share many of the morals of the UK government or UK society as a whole, im more Liberal than most