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

megaman79 on 06 May 2009
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.

 

Is this how heaven is explained? That is science fiction.

 



“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.

Around the Network
highwaystar101 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?

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.

 

 



Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
megaman79 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.

 

Is this how heaven is explained? That is science fiction.

 

There are a number of different scientific principils that aren't explained.

For example.  For the longest time Dark Energy was completly unexplained.  All people knew was that the universe was expanding faster and faster... when in reality the universe's expansions should be slower and slower.

There was no explination so someone came up with "Dark Energy" the idea that an unknown, undetectable energy was radiating throught the universe pushing everything along faster and faster.

This is now accepted scientific dogma... and all without anyone actually observing it or proving it exists.  Outside of the fact that the universe is expanding faster then it should.

I believe there is now proof of it.  However it was accepted scientific fact before then.

Part of science is accepting that there is stuff we just can't perceive with our current tools... and just because we can't p

Edit: Nope... no proof of Dark Energy.  Which actually makes the point better.

Scientists just have faith that Dark Energy exists.  Just how they had faith that certain elements on the periodic table existed before anyone was able to recreate them in a labratory setting.



tombi123 on 06 May 2009
highwaystar101 said:
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?

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 on sundays. Atheists don't follow a set of beliefs or have a book to follow.

 



ssj12 on 06 May 2009
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. 

 



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
 
Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 06 May 2009
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.

 



Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
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.



Kasz216 on 06 May 2009
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.

 



ssj12 on 06 May 2009
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.



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:
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.