Ricky Gervais explains why he doesn't believe in god

[FirmaFan]

Not anything really new or groundbreaking here, but extremely concise with a touch of Gervais humor that makes him wonderful to read and listen to:

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

 

[FirmaFan]

The most LOGICAL PROOF of God's existence....is the The entire UNIVERSE.

The existence of the universe is logical proof only of the fact that the universe exists. It says nothing about the existence of god anymore than the existence of santa clause.

We see everything in the universe,

Well, not everything, but I understand your point. In science, this is called observation.

and that universe has a beginning,

Based upon the observation of the universe, many many physicists are attempting to explain those observations. The beginning of the universe has thus far eluded current scientific knowledge. Know, however, that the beginning of the universe is not the kind of "beginning" used in common vernacular. It occurred before time was time, before there were dimensions, before anything we understand as existence.

but God doesn't have a beginning or end.

Simply stating this does not demonstrate or provide evidence for anything. If you are to use this to justify your argument, you must first define god, show god exists, then demonstrate that god has no beginning or end. I am simply unable to accept this as an explanation until such requirements are met.

The Question will always be, "Who, What, and How the universe came into being?"

The question will never be "who". The reason for that is such - by asking "who" you have immediately and without justification reduced the possible explanations to some sort of anthropomorphic entity.

I don't think that there will ever be any scientific evidence of God's existence, even to the end of time.

This prompts me to wonder why otherwise rational human beings, who would require evidence for any and all other extraordinary claims, allow the claim of god to be immune to such scrutiny.

The Universe will always be a wonderful thing to ponder on.

Your description about the universe being a wonderful thing made me think of a well known quote from Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

 

[sokker]

FirmaFan, I love you, but sometimes (most often actually) it's impossible to talk reason or logic with Christians.

To all the Christians out there: the Universe was NOT created by God, it was created by The Big Bang.

 

[FirmaFan]

FirmaFan, I love you,

Ahhh....thanks! Love ya too!

but sometimes (most often actually) it's impossible to talk reason or logic with Christians.

Of course, when I deliberately and knowingly engage in such conversations, I have no illusion about changing the minds of the religious that I am debating. I rather enjoy these conversations, and, in fact, it would be quite disappointing if the person I was arguing against suddenly said "okay, you're right, debate over"....that just doesn't seem like any fun. Taken to an extreme, I would love nothing more than to argue against a Westboro Baptist Church member in a forum such as this...I don't think that would stop them from protesting against gays, but I would be able to hammer home some damn good points in that kind of discussion.

In addition, I feel it is unjust for society to tip-toe around other people's religious beliefs. Those beliefs, more often than not, inform the most important actions and decisions they make. They provide the framework for how people vote, something that affects the entire population...why then must their beliefs remain unchallenged? I'm not saying we should be insulting, but I should be able to question a person's belief in god without causing offense the same way I can question a person's desire for Palin for president. But mere criticism of religion will more often than not simply cause people to stomp their feet, shout "that's just my religion" and accuse my criticism as being a violation of their right to have those beliefs. That's why, when I find someone willing to discuss their beliefs, and not be offended when I challenge their arguments, I will most definitely discuss such topics, sometimes at great lengths.

 

[FirmaFan]

Who was/is the power behind the big bang? Obviously, it is God Himself, therefore he did create the Universe.

I feel I have already addressed this kind of claim and have shown why the things being said are argumentatively illogical.

 

[BlueLantern]

Who was/is the power behind the big bang? Obviously, it is God Himself, therefore he did create the Universe.

How you don't know that the universe was created in the future by super-advanced humans who then send the universe back in time for the big bang?

yes, I know I don't make sense, but I suppose it was only far to talk at your level.

 

[FLGG2007]

For centuries, brilliant theologians have written volumes on their struggle to believe.
To try to prove or disprove the existence of God in a few sentences here is humorous.
Honest questioning covers broader issues than a paragraph or two here can do to convince anyone of anything that's eternal.

 

[wooffy]

And once more the religious invade an atheism discussion. What is it about theists that compel them to force themselves on others at every turn?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Like FirmaFan, I enjoy these conversations. Invasive? No, I think the point may be discussion.

Hopefully, if people are seeking threads restricting responses to a select quarter they will include a disclaimer in the opening post.

 

[hotatlboi]

Who was/is the power behind the big bang? Obviously, it is God Himself, therefore he did create the Universe.

What you have done here is to say that an incredible thing with an unknown beginning (the universe) is too complex to have existed without a prior cause. So to come up with that cause you have postulated an even MORE complex thing that has existed without a prior cause (God). You have not logically explained anything. In effect you have restated the problem/mystery but to an even larger extent.

 

[kallipolis]

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Or is the effect of the cause merely a circle, in perpetual motion, upon a thought that the causation is in its infinite existence the cause, and its effect?

Now back the to the chicken. Or, is it the egg?

 

[hotatlboi]

....and we may never truly know the answer to the problem/mystery; it is precisely what you have just called it- MYSTERY. Science will never be able to figure out GOD. God exsistance is ETERNAL.

I'm not saying science will come up with the ultimate answer, just that "God" does nothing to explain it either. The universe without "God" is a less complex thing than the universe with God.

 

[FirmaFan]

That is precisely why we aught to Meditate, Contemplate, and question God, as he has called each and everyone of us to come to know him. See #'s 31-38 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can google the Catechism, and read it online.

I think we should investigate, experiment, and question the nature of the universe and see what answers we arrive at. You have already closed off your mind to any possibility other than god.

 

[willlliamo]

....and we may never truly know the answer to the problem/mystery; it is precisely what you have just called it- MYSTERY. Science will never be able to figure out GOD. God exsistance is ETERNAL.

Actually, science would very easily be able to prove God existed if he showed up, walked a few feet on water and turned gravity upside down (this is called 'evidence'). But until he does, everything related to God (in the christian sense) is just an unfalsifiable statement. Good scientists do not accept unfalsifiable statements. It's one of the reason's Freud is largely discredited.

 

[falcie]

Actually, science would very easily be able to prove God existed if he showed up, walked a few feet on water and turned gravity upside down (this is called 'evidence'). But until he does, everything related to God (in the christian sense) is just an unfalsifiable statement. Good scientists do not accept unfalsifiable statements. It's one of the reason's Freud is largely discredited.

Since you reject an unfalsifiable statement, you must believe that only statements which are verifiable are meaningful. This is problematic though. If we wish to determine if statement x is true, we must first have an understanding of what x means. Validation or verification of a principle, or in that case of what your trying to do - the falsification of a principle can only occur if we have an understanding of the meaning of such a principle. For example, before we can determine the meaning of the statement 'mathematics represents and ultimate truth' we must first possess and understanding of a) mathematics and b) the nature of reality, we can observe these things, and thus judge the truth of the principle or proposition handed to us. However, we possess no such understanding of the nature of God, if we attempt to grapple with the proposition 'God exists' we find we can, because, although we have an inherent understanding of existence, we have no such understanding of God.

Similarly, there is nothing to account for the meaningfulness of science. If we accept the theory that only that which can be empirically proved is meaningful, what empirical proof is there that science is greater than religion? Or God for that matter?

 

[falcie]

Your description about the universe being a wonderful thing made me think of a well known quote from Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Your quote made me think of a quote by John Widsom, funnily enough: "Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."

Suppose this Gardener is God, and that the garden is the universe. There is order, and chaos. Both exist simultaneously. One of us may interpret it as evidence of God, another as evidence sufficient to prove the inexistence of such a being. Perhaps there may not be fairies at the bottom of the garden, but instead an invisible Gardner whom tends the plants.

 

[fevernever]

For a long time I believed everything christians would shove right my brain, now I doubt a lot.
I want to be an atheist but I just don't know how

 

[bankside]

There are no other possibilities other than God, and that is just my own opinion and belief.

That is just your own opinion and belief, but doesn't that leave you sad? Wouldn't it be better if it was more than just your opinion?

That's why these kinds of questions matter to me: they are important. They're too important to just leave to people's random opinion. They're worth figuring out.

That's why I enjoy discussions between believers and skeptics: one day I think there will be consensus.

 

[Spensed]

Do you think that God would willingly make an absolute fool of himself? He was on earth in the form of his Son, Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago, and people saw him, he was documented, and he has proven himself. But did the leaders of his day listen, to him? Nooooooo! They had him crucified, and he died willingly for you and me.
re-check your history, please.

As far as I know, the "evidence" that Jesus existed as an actual historical individual is at best limited to witness accounts and stories reduced to writing some decades or centuries later. Not exactly reliable.

Also whether there was a specific individual Jesus or not tells us nothing about whether he was the Son of God any more than anyone else is.

If Jesus made a modern day appearance for half an hour so that could be scientifically evidenced, etc., etc., he would save many people a lot of energy arguing one way or the other. The fact that one has to rely on the gift of faith speaks for itself.

I actually think that the issue is irrelevant to the truth of Jesus. Myths do not have to be real to be true. And that is so, even if the myth itself is somewhat dated. How much of a sacrifice is it to send your own son to die, if you know he is going to be resurrected to greater glory? It seems pretty clear that the story is about mythical symbolism (of the pain that an earthly ruler and his son would feel, etc.) so it makes more sense as poetry or metaphysics than it does as a documentary or history.

Just my opinion. It is not my focus to attack anyone's faith or lack of faith.

 

[falcie]

As far as I know, the "evidence" that Jesus existed as an actual historical individual is at best limited to witness accounts and stories reduced to writing some decades or centuries later. Not exactly reliable.

Actually, there is a wealth of knowledge with regard to the fact that Jesus existed and Christiological professors have pretty much proved the existance of a Jesus Christ, who travelled to the same places, and was born and died, in what we believe to be the correct years for such events.

Whether or not he was the son of God, thats another question entierly.