Ricky Gervais explains why he doesn't believe in god

[bankside]

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.

I agree about the value of myth in illustrating principles we should think about. But when someone confuses it with reality, it's a problem. It changes what they take away from the myth, to the extent that they probably miss the point entirely. And it's either dishonest or delusional to mark something as historically factual and real, when it is merely insightful and poetic. If we can't get that distinction right, it makes for a lot of grief down the road.

My opinions concerning Religion, especially concerning Catholicism, are based on my own study of said Religion, ie; The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Scriptures, Vatican II Documents, and the early Church Fathers, and Councils.I spent 9 years in a Monastery, where I learned much about prayer and Contemplation.

Have you studied other things? My only caution would be that studying something for 9 years does not make it true. Did you know there are men who have spent 9 years in buddhist monasteries studying a contradictory kind of faith? And what about the men who have spent 9 years in Islamic madrassas studying another faith that contradicts Catholicism?

9 years of study doesn't make anything true.

 

[bankside]

To thine own self be true.

That's what we all should be, true to ourselves - discover our own truths.

And it's understandable that those who have one truth or another that they are so sure of, they'd want others to see and experience it too.

But we all see the world and the Universe and the things we study for 9 years or more with different eyes and different brains and different sets of experience depending on where we landed on this planet and into whatever circumstances we found (or now find) ourselves.

Live your own truth and believe what you do for whatever reasons you do. But have an open mind and an open heart to others -- that they view their existence through filters not like your own -- and come to conclusions that are no less truthful than your own.

This seems way off base. What's true for you is true for me. If we disagree, one of us is mistaken, or maybe both. Of course there's a risk of that even if we agree. It is interesting, however, to try to resolve the differences and come to a common understanding that stands up to some scrutiny. If the sun rises and sets for me, it does the same for you. There are universals out there, and it is a noble quest to discover them.

 

[bankside]

I'm speaking of the things less obvious, not so much about sunrises and sunsets.

Me too, just using the sun as a metaphor

 

[wooffy]

My opinions concerning Religion, especially concerning Catholicism, are based on my own study of said Religion, ie; The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Scriptures, Vatican II Documents, and the early Church Fathers, and Councils.I spent 9 years in a Monastery, where I learned much about prayer and Contemplation.

LOL. Isn't that like reading Walmart's annual report and believing what it tells you?

 

[Spensed]

....and do you think anyone will even listen or even reconsider the evidence, as had happened over 2000 years ago with the then leaders of Israel? Hard hearted people will not listen regardless of any evidence put before them.

Well one good way of making sure that people will ignore any modern day evidence is never to present it. I think it's a valid point that God, if he exists, doesn't need to play this cat and mouse game with believers and non-believers alike and, yet for some reason, chooses to do so. Makes little sense to me, but, if it works for you, that's your prerogative.

 

[Spensed]

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.

And there's a wealth of evidence about the JFK assassination.

While I no expert on whether a historical Jesus existed or not, it is my sense that the issue is not as black and white as you suggest and that the best evidence of what such an individual did, and what was embellished, is not objectively dispositive.

Certainly not with respect to things like his miracles and resurrection.

 

[Spensed]

I agree about the value of myth in illustrating principles we should think about. But when someone confuses it with reality, it's a problem. It changes what they take away from the myth, to the extent that they probably miss the point entirely. And it's either dishonest or delusional to mark something as historically factual and real, when it is merely insightful and poetic. If we can't get that distinction right, it makes for a lot of grief down the road.

I understand why you are saying that, in this context, but I am not sure that you are right. If a myth or fable contains or demonstrates a truth, it seems irrelevant and a different point as to whether it originates in actuality or not.

Additionally, many believers do not assert that the Biblical myth is literally or historically true in every respect so one can end up tilting at windmills that are not there.

 

[wooffy]

NO! It's keeping pace with what the Church teaches- past, present and future. a Catholic aught not to lose sight of all that the Church teaches from the past, present and looking to the future in hope. It's called being constantly informed, and updated.

You completely missed my point.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?"

I've always taken that quote to mean that there's no point in looking beyond the flowers and birds to anything else -- no investigations, no science.

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.

How is God more complex than the Big Bang?

 

[WillMc88]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong. Sources?

 

[falcie]

I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong. Sources?

What we sometimes forget, not that I’m implying that you have - just reiterating a point, is that the bible wasn’t written as a collective text. Although written after the death of Christ the gospels were written individually, by people who had proof of the existence of Christ. We know that primary sources must hast existed because of the similarities between the three primary synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), some people refer to it as the Q Document or Source. We know that the document must have included numerous quotations from Christ, as these form the basis of the Synoptic Gospels - the primary ones at least. I admit, this is hazy, but people do sometimes say 'You cant use the Bible, use real sources', but it shouldn’t really be discounted for the reasons above.

The primary problem is that there exists no primary sources for the existence of Christ, but - generally speaking - most of the information we gain about a historical figure is by reading the information produced about them after their death. So, yes, I concede the point there is no primary source evidence but we can build up an idea of Christ from the sources created after his death, and not just the ones in the Bible.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious Christians, who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." and says

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

This is odd, as Josephus was very much like a modern historian, not allowing religion to distort facts, taking accounts from both sides of the historical spectrum etc. So it's strange that he would recant Christ in this way.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata talks of a 'Jesus' who was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews.

This, and all the Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Phillip etc. all talk of Christ, and are classes as individual historical texts as they were all not included in the bible - meaning that they were never manipulated by the Church like gospels such as John, so they must be accurate historical documents - in the sense that what is written is what the author believes.

That and by the end of the first century there were thousands of believers in the Levant - which I agree, is a bit of a weak point. But we do know that men like James, son of Zebedee, Saint Peter and John all were real people, and undertook the title 'Apostle', which lends itself to the fact there was a historical figure whom they followed and undertook the Great Commission for.

There is plenty of evidence for Christ, it may not be contemporary, in the most strict sense of the word. But things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls are valuable in showing that the New Testament portrays the first century period that it reports and is not a product of a later period.

Just so you know, Im not some crazy Bible-belt Christian, I don’t even believe in God. Not at all
Just a little bit interested. Sorry for the rant :/

 

[WillMc88]

I'm aware that there were some historians who spoke of Jesus, but none of them were contemporaneous, and it's highly unlikely that no record of Jesus would have been made, especially considering everything he supposedly did.

And if there were other secular sources that were not Josephus/didn't cite Josephus/or actually had witnessed first-hand the actual Jesus, I'd find his existence much more credible.

 

[FirmaFan]

I've always taken that quote to mean that there's no point in looking beyond the flowers and birds to anything else -- no investigations, no science.

Then I think you missed the point. That quote is saying that it is unnecessary to invoke a supernatural entity into an observed aspect of the universe when the observation is explanation enough.

Believing in a supernatural entity when no evidence suggests that such an entity exists does not automatically make one open minded, as you so implied by saying that not believing in it leave "no point in looking beyond the flowers...", and can in fact leave one completely closed minded, refusing to accept anything other than the supernatural claim, despite what any further investigations might reveal.

Case and point:

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

 

[Kulindahr]

Then I think you missed the point. That quote is saying that it is unnecessary to invoke a supernatural entity into an observed aspect of the universe when the observation is explanation enough.

That's how it's used, but on the face of it it's saying accept the beauty, don't look further.

Believing in a supernatural entity when no evidence suggests that such an entity exists does not automatically make one open minded, as you so implied by saying that not believing in it leave "no point in looking beyond the flowers...", and can in fact leave one completely closed minded, refusing to accept anything other than the supernatural claim, despite what any further investigations might reveal.

I didn't imply anything about supernatural entities, I just observed that it dismisses any use for investigation at all.

Though if you insist only on scientific evidence, you're already close-minded.

Case and point:

I think that's "case in point".... http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/case+in+point

 

[WillMc88]

FirmaFan, Kulindahr knows exactly what the quote means and he's just trying to strawman your points, as he so often does.

 

[bankside]

Douglas Adams' point is don't ignore the real in favour of the imaginary.

And anyone who can intellectually tart up a bronze age fable into a Royal Chronicle can surely uncover the hidden meaning of Adams' statement.

 

[zoltanspawn]

What value is there in beauty beside the literal?

Jeez, guys.

 

[bankside]

Okay, let's shake the magic 8 ball and see what else comes up.

Douglas Adams' point is don't ignore [STRIKE]the real in favour of the imaginary.[/STRIKE] value of the real in favour of the value of the imaginary, and don't debase the insight offered by the imaginary by clinging needlessly to the contention that it is real as well as insightful.

The man wrote fiction. He didn't write pointless fiction. But he knew it was fiction.

 

[zoltanspawn]

and don't debase the insight offered by the imaginary by clinging needlessly to the contention that it is real as well as insightful.

^^I don't see this defense in Adams' quote.

Rather, in many atheists' arguments, the insights of the imagination are routinely dismissed as imaginary, untrue, merely poetic, so on and so forth. What lame value is left to fiction, myth, allegory, metaphor and guesswork when always appended with such contempt?

The imagination isn't debased by the contention that its fancies are real, but that they are unreal.

 

[Officialposter]

Here is my view on the subject.

We know energy can't be created or destroyed

There is an all element(God) but this God is not in human form. In order for anything to be the creator of everything, that source must include every known element/energy/force in the universe. This is not in the shape of human DNA. We know that the Universe is made up of energy, and force.. there were 4 altogether before the big bang, gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. There was the single point of everything. Then we have this Dark energy/dark matter that plays a role

The universe is what it is and WILL END with the energy/forces that i listed there, and it started from force/energy.

It's very small of humans to think GOD would be in the like of him out of EVERYTHING in the universe.. kinda like how people thought the sun went around the earth. The chances of that are very small to none.. it's more probable that this GOD is an all ENERGY/FORCE and thus the universe was created from it, and we know this can't be created or destroyed. Yes I believe this all force can change forms, but at it's core it's NOT just a human.

energy can be transformed