Ricky Gervais discusses god and atheism

[Sasha]

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist

By Ricky Gervais


http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-LL010_rickyg_DV_20101217183617.jpg
HBO Ricky Gervais


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.
Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -*‐ evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe”, this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me”, but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith”. If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

This, is of course a spirituality issue, religion is a different matter. As an atheist, I see nothing “wrong” in believing in a god. I don’t think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that’s fine with me. It’s when belief starts infringing on other people’s rights when it worries me. I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn’t kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral. It’s strange that anyone who believes that an all-*‐powerful all knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are. From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. There is a god”, I’m him, no one else is, you’re not as good and don’t forget it. (Don’t murder anyone, doesn’t get a mention till number 6.)
When confronted with anyone who holds my lack of religious faith in such contempt, I say, “It’s the way God made me.”
But what are atheists really being accused of?

The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe”. Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.
So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God”, I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

I used to believe in God. The Christian one that is.
I loved Jesus. He was my hero. More than pop stars. More than footballers. More than God. God was by definition omnipotent and perfect. Jesus was a man. He had to work at it. He had temptation but defeated sin. He had integrity and courage. But He was my hero because He was kind. And He was kind to everyone. He didn’t bow to peer pressure or tyranny or cruelty. He didn’t care who you were. He loved you. What a guy. I wanted to be just like Him.

One day when I was about 8 years old, I was drawing the crucifixion as part of my Bible-*‐studies homework. I loved art too. And nature. I loved how God made all the animals. They were also perfect. Unconditionally beautiful. It was an amazing world.
I lived in a very poor, working-*‐class estate in an urban sprawl called Reading, about 40 miles west of London. My father was a laborer and my mother was a housewife. I was never ashamed of poverty. It was almost noble. Also, everyone I knew was in the same situation, and I had everything I needed. School was free. My clothes were cheap and always clean and ironed. And mum was always cooking. She was cooking the day I was drawing on the cross.
I was sitting at the kitchen table when my brother came home. He was 11 years older than me, so he would have been 19. He was as smart as anyone I knew, but he was too cheeky. He would answer back and get into trouble. I was a good boy. I went to church and believed in God – what a relief for a working-*‐class mother. You see, growing up where I did, mums didn’t hope as high as their kids growing up to be doctors; they just hoped their kids didn’t go to jail. So bring them up believing in God and they’ll be good and law abiding. It’s a perfect system. Well, nearly. 75 percent of Americans are God-*‐fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-*‐fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists.
But anyway, there I was happily drawing my hero when my big brother Bob asked, “Why do you believe in God?” Just a simple question. But my mum panicked. “Bob” she said in a tone that I knew meant, “Shut up.” Why was that a bad thing to ask? If there was a God and my faith was strong it didn’t matter what people said.
Oh … hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist.

Wow. No God. If mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? Yes, of course, but who cares? The gifts kept coming. And so did the gifts of my new found atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. I learned of evolution – a theory so simple that only England’s greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals and us – with imagination, free will, love, humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.
But living an honest life – for that you need the truth. That’s the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.

So what does the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” really mean. I think when someone asks that; they are really questioning their own belief. In a way they are asking “what makes you so special? “How come you weren’t brainwashed with the rest of us?” “How dare you say I’m a fool and I’m not going to heaven, f— you!” Let’s be honest, if one person believed in God he would be considered pretty strange. But because it’s a very popular view it’s accepted. And why is it such a popular view? That’s obvious. It’s an attractive proposition. Believe in me and live forever. Again if it was just a case of spirituality this would be fine. “Do unto others…” is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. Buts that’s exactly what it is -*‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I’m good. I just don’t believe I’ll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It’s knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life. And that’s where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. “Do this or you’ll burn in hell.”
You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.



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

[ComradeMan]

source:
HBO Ricky Gervais (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/)

(http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/)Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -*

So there is no bias involved in science? Scientists do not reject theories that might threaten their positions?

Quantum physics is based on assumptions.

There is no “hard evidence” for electrons but the theory works and so the assumptions are based on good faith.


evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along.

Like the geologist who dated the sphynx to 10,000 BCE but the egyptologists wouldn’t even listen to him, and the whole track record of discoveries that were laughed at or presumed erroneous etc because they threatened established opinions?


It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe”, this is not as effective as medicine.

Interestingly leaches are used in modern medicine. The ancient Egyptians were also aware of the curative effects of bread mould.


Again you can say, “It works for me”, but so do placebos.

Why do placebos work though?


My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true.

Like Quantum physics?


Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

See Kierkegaard.


Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith”. If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

Silly argument and logically flawed.

Something that possibly may exist and cannot be proven, nor disproven is not the same as something which is impossible and can be disproven.


The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe”. Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God”, I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Relying on a dictionary definition? Unaware of the concept of many names for the same thing? See the ancient Greeks. I think the San tribes of southern Africa might also dispute the dating here?

I’m sorry but Ricky Gervais is of course free to express his opinion and believe or not believe he wants but if these are the best counter-theist arguments he can come up with he should stick to being a comedian.

[Revolution starts with U]

So there is no bias involved in science? Scientists do not reject theories that might threaten their positions?
Scientists have their biases. And the scientific method is prepared for this. Science itself is bias free. Let me refer you to Piltdown Man.


Quantum physics is based on assumptions.
Show me. QM is pretty solidly based on evidence that has not been refuted.


There is no “hard evidence” for electrons but the theory works and so the assumptions are based on good faith.
Tell Hiroshima there is no hard evidence for electrons. This has got to be one of the most ignorant (and I mean that literally, nothing offensive) statements I have seen on the issue.


Like the geologist who dated the sphynx to 10,000 BCE but the egyptologists wouldn’t even listen to him, and the whole track record of discoveries that were laughed at or presumed erroneous etc because they threatened established opinions?
Because the Sphinx can't be dated to 10k BC. There has been some cursory evidence of its age. But it has been explained away so well that not even Ancient Aliens (on the History Channel, great show :D) wiould use it.
Being laughed at is much better than being burnt at the stake because you threaten established opinions.



Interestingly leaches are used in modern medicine. The ancient Egyptians were also aware of the curative effects of bread mould.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Although, if you feel so good about ancient curing methods, you are free to try them. Lord knows I (and actually much of the scientific community) don't like modern pharma. But don't be surprised if it doesn't work, and actually harms you worse.


Why do placebos work though?
See, here you touch on a question more scientists should ask themselves. Why do placebos work 50% as effectively as regular medicines. The beautiful part about science is that THEY ARE starting to. Thats how the system works. You can have your crackpot theory all you want, as long as you have evidence of it. And if you can show evidence, the community will show interest in it. Even if they are just trying to tear it down, it is one step forward for knowledge gained.
There may be something better in the future. But if you deny the scientific method's as the greatest method of knowledge gaining yet invented, you are crazy (especially compared to the methods previously employed by religion).



Like Quantum physics?
Prove it. Take your refutation of QM to a physics professor at your local uni. See if you can show that it is based on assumption. I assure you it is not. And wherever you're getting that info, they are lying to you.



Silly argument and logically flawed.

Something that possibly may exist and cannot be proven, nor disproven is not the same as something which is impossible and can be disproven.
Ill point out to you that again, that just because their is a fallacy in the argument does not make the conclusion false.
Ill also point out again that if God is your interpretation (which is not the interpretation of most religious people) than God is absolutely irrelevant to human existence. Belief in your version of God is like belief in "love conquers all." Sure, it sounds great, and I really actually metaphorically see the value in it. But what does it mean??????
Nothing.




Relying on a dictionary definition? Unaware of the concept of many names for the same thing? See the ancient Greeks. I think the San tribes of southern Africa might also dispute the dating here?
Did the write?! (Idk who these tribes are so I cant say they didnt) If they didnt, then history still starts at 6k bce. History has to do with the written recortd. The other facets of human history are archaeology and anthropology.


I’m sorry but Ricky Gervais is of course free to express his opinion and believe or not believe he wants but if these are the best counter-theist arguments he can come up with he should stick to being a comedian.
Im sorry But Comrademan is of course free to express his opinion and believe or not believe what he wants. But if these are the best anti-counter theist arguments he can come up with, he should stick to getting trolled by Mariel. ;)
(You do have a tendency to think you just slam dunked someone's argument even if your counter argument is piss poor at best.)

[ComradeMan]

What is the solid evidence that QM is based on?

Theoretical assumptions are not solid evidence.

Even theoretically, quantum gravity runs into serious problems.
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/quantumgravity.htm

There is no hard evidence for electrons, they are deducted--- to date. It's not ignorant and it's not offensive so stop trying to poison the well. Prove to me in a concrete manner that electrons exist- without using theory to cover the lack of evidence "under the microscope". You can't. Now I don't have a problem with electrons, and I don't deny their existence, the theory is reasonable- but if people want to start acting like smart asses and writing off "assumptions" and "faith" arguments then they better be careful with some "science" too. Scientific theories are only as valid as they remain until be superseded by new theories.

Re the sphinx- it can be dated to 10k using geological methodology and was done so by a geologist who had a long and successful career in petrochemical surveying. But the established intelligentsia were not interested. It had nothing to do with aliens, UFO or anything else, just rocks and water and scientific data.

Ooops.

Written history begins, we think, around 6000K and that would more or less suit religionists too, ironically. It's completely absurd to write off all the other cultures and societies that lived before, and some who still do. If you actually bothered to look you'd find that the San people have a culture that may be up to 60,000 years old- genetic science has confirmed them to be the "oldest" people on Earth.

But you didn't bother because it didn't suit your argument....:lol:

I'm sorry but you have no counter arguments. If you use logic to disprove the existence of God then logically fallacious arguments cannot be used in this.

Suggest you read more anthropology books too, and find out who the San people are- modern human history seems to have begun with them... LOL!!! Or on the other hand we could argue the existence of God based on failed logic and the principles of "it works" so why question it? Hmmm double standards here?

Fail.

PS Stop building up strawman arguments too. I am not anti-science and I am not a creationist on the other hand I don't see serious debates coming out from people who "scientifically" disprove the existence of God in the most unscientific and flawed manners.

[Havet]

awesome article. read it at facebook not hours ago (in fact, i came here to post it, but the OP beat me to it). He's doing an important thing, trying to foster peace between theists, a-theists, anti-theists and pan-theists (jesus, did I miss anyone??)

Keep your heads cool folks. Regardless of your view on existence, we are still stuck on the same piece of sun-orbitating metal rock. As Jon Stewart said not so long ago:


Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals, or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do! But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.

Look–look on the screen. This is where we are, this is who we are. These cars. That’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high, he’s going to work. . . . A lady’s in the NRA, loves Oprah. . . . Another car’s a Latino carpenter: another car, a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan.

Concession by concession: you go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. ‘Oh my God—is that an NRA sticker on your car?’ ‘Is that an Obama sticker on your car?’ Oh, that’s okay—you go, then I’ll go.

[mikelepore]

What is the solid evidence that QM is based on?

For example, diffraction and interference patterns produced with streams of matter.


Theoretical assumptions are not solid evidence.

When people say things like that, I think they don't know the difference between evidence and proof. For something to be evidence is a very weak requirement. Proof is a difficult requirement.


and gluons (such as quarks) mediate the strong nuclear force

Not "such as quarks." The standard model assumes that gluons mediate the strong force that acts *between* quarks, and also between bound systems that are composed of quarks (hadrons).

[Revolution starts with U]

What is the solid evidence that QM is based on?

Theoretical assumptions are not solid evidence.

Most if not all of QM has been proven in the lab. It is not just theoretical. (Ironically, that's why String Theory isn't a theory. And even stringers will tell you that.)

Even theoretically, quantum gravity runs into serious problems. Gravitation is currently explained through the theory of general relativity, which makes very different assumptions about the universe at the macroscopic scale than those made by quantum mechanics at the microscopic scale.
If you are going to use the word assumption there (which I don't think is an accurate representation) you are talking in an entirely different context. These are not the type of assumption that could be carved with, say, Occam's razor. These are physically validated phenomena.
QM stopped becoming theoretical (long before) Hiroshima got incinerated.


The standard model of quantum mechanics (developed between 1970 & 1973) postulates that the other three fundamental forces of physics are mediated by virtual bosons. Photons mediate the electromagnetic force, W & Z bosons mediate the weak nuclear force, and gluons (such as quarks) mediate the strong nuclear force.
All of which has been seen in the lab. The shit really exists. We make tiny computers based off this man, come on.



Is quantum gravity proven?

Would Stephen Hawking (or any other prominent physicist) say it is?
That's why there's a difference between general and special relativity.



Attempts to combine them generally run into the "renormalization problem," in which the sum of all of the forces do not cancel out and result in an infinite value. In quantum electrodynamics, this happened occasionally, but one could renormalize the mathematics to remove these issues. Such renormalization does not work in a quantum interpretation of gravity.

The assumptions of quantum gravity are generally that such a theory will prove to be both simple and elegant, so many physicists attempt to work backward, predicting a theory that they feel might account for the symmetries observed in current physics and then seeing if those theories work.
Source (http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/quantumgravity.htm)

And that doesn't show you the beauty of the scientific method?! Look, they are saying they don't know. They, at present, can't know. And they are giving you, straight up no bones about it, their methodology on how they are getting there. You are free to try to prove them wrong. Ask them, most welcome it.


There is no hard evidence for electrons, they are deducted--- to date. It's not ignorant and it's not offensive so stop trying to poison the well. Prove to me in a concrete manner that electrons exist- without using theory to cover the lack of evidence "under the microscope". You can't. Now I don't have a problem with electrons, and I don't deny their existence, the theory is reasonable- but if people want to start acting like smart asses and writing off "assumptions" and "faith" arguments then they better be careful with some "science" too. Scientific theories are only as valid as they remain until be superseded by new theories.



Re the sphynx- it can be dated to 10k using geological methodology and was done so by a geologist who had a long and successful career in petrochemical surveying. But the established intelligentsia were not interested. It had nothing to do with aliens, UFO or anything else, just rocks and water and scientific data.
If one can show more than cursory evidence, one is free to try. Only a select few scientists desire personal gratification over truth. At least in my experience.
One should not have to rewrite everything we know about history to formulate a hypothesis.
And I believe there were ancient civilizations before Egypt and Sumer.



Written history begins, we think, around 6000K and that would more or less suit religionists too, ironically. It's completely absurd to write off all the other cultures and societies that lived before, and some who still do. If you actually bothered to look you'd find that the San people have a culture that may be up to 60,000 years old- genetic science has confirmed them to be the "oldest" people on Earth.

Written history. Written history. History deals with writing. History does not study non-writing. Archaeology and anthropology do the other stuff.
History (from Greek (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Greek_language) ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation"[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-JosephJanda-1)) is the study of the human past (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Past). History can also mean the period of time after writing was invented. Scholars who write about history are called historians (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Historian). It is a field of research which uses a narrative (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Narrative) to examine and analyse the sequence of events...
Events of the past prior to written record are considered prehistory (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Prehistory).



But you didn't bother because it didn't suit your argument....:lol:

Would you retract this statement in the light of recent evidence?
I didn't say the world started 6000 years ago. I said history did. I can't "write off" prehistoric culture.... because they didn't have writing! :rolleyes:



Suggest you read more anthropology books too, and find out who the San people are- modern human history seems to have begun with them... LOL!!! Or on the other hand we could argue the existence of God based on failed logic and the principles of "it works" so why question it? Hmmm double standards here?

I'm actually an anthropologist by training, tyvm. And we have all seen "The Gods Must be Crazy." The Bushmen are quite a fascinating culture, especially descriptions of their shaman's trances. They are akin to some of the earliest other cultures in terms of art as well.
Actually, if you're into that, have you checked out the aboriginee of australia? They represent a pretty old culture as well, and give strong evidence that we knew of boatcraft from our earliest ancestors.
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rfeinber/ is one of my profs... and just to throw it out there, so is..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Lovejoy_(anthropologist)
Which, if you don't know who he is, it means you just threw the word anthropology out there and told me to read more because you read the wikipedia of the bushmen, or something.


Fail.

I would get mad about your childish displays of verbiosity, but I'm just having too much fun laughing about it :lol:


PS Stop building up strawman arguments too. I am not anti-science and I am not a creationist on the other hand I don't see serious debates coming out from people who "scientifically" disprove the existence of God in the most unscientific and flawed manners.

That's the point. You shouldn't have to "disprove" this mystical being anymore than any other mystical being. Do I have to centaurs? Why should I have to disprove love to say I don't believe in it?
(On a side note; that will be taken wildly out of context. I believe in romance, and attraction, and connection and all that. I just think love is too subjective to mean anything. Sometimes people are "in love" and all is fine and dandy. They live happy lives and die that way. Awesome, hope to do it myself. Sometimes people are "in love" and they are purely addicted to each other, usually not even each other, just each other's genetalia.)

Win?

[ComradeMan]

Most if not all of QM has been proven in the lab. It is not just theoretical. (Ironically, that's why String Theory isn't a theory. And even stringers will tell you that.)If you are going to use the word assumption there (which I don't think is an accurate representation) you are talking in an entirely different context. These are not the type of assumption that could be carved with, say, Occam's razor. These are physically validated phenomena. QM stopped becoming theoretical (long before) Hiroshima got incinerated. All of which has been seen in the lab. The shit really exists. We make tiny computers based off this man, come on.

All of which has been seen in the lab

Has it? Really been "seen" in the lab? Deduced is something else.

Where's the Grand Unifying Theory? :lol:

Come off it. Science itself or let's say the many branches of science often come into conflict with each other.

A classical example is the Faint Sun Paradox- I see NoNoXion coveniently skipped over that one too.



And that doesn't show you the beauty of the scientific method?! Look, they are saying they don't know. They, at present, can't know. And they are giving you, straight up no bones about it, their methodology on how they are getting there. You are free to try to prove them wrong. Ask them, most welcome it.

I'm not attacking science at all. But when so-called scientists here and comedians make bold statements about science and that everything can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt in order to attack people's spiritual belief I believe they have feet of clay. Science also relies on theories, assumptions and some things because they appear to work without having physical proof of their existence- yet they demand that same sort of concrete evidence from people who are religious/spiritual.

Let's take another example. Chomsky's LED- had any neurosurgeon ever found the language acquisition device? Has it ever been proven to exist? Do Chomsky's theories actually work for all languages? The answer is no, but it's the best theory to date, so it will suffice for the time being. I don't think Chomsky would claim it to be the GUT of linguistics though.

Re the sphynx- you said it could not be dated to 10,000 BCE- quite clearly, despite the scientific method that was applied using geology and astrophysics along with what we know of ancient weather patterns- all sets of data obtained by scientific method. The dating was nothing to do with UFOs, aliens and all that nonsense but you rejected it outright, as did the egyptologists who were too scared it might upset their nice little theories. This is the problem with the scientific community- they too can be dishonest, funnily enough that which some accuse religionists of.

I see you edited the definition of history that you posted.:lol:

History (from Greek (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Greek_language) ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation" is the study of the human past.

History can also mean the period of time after writing was invented.

Also is the key word. Sneaky..... :sneaky:


Would you retract this statement in the light of recent evidence? I didn't say the world started 6000 years ago. I said history did. I can't "write off" prehistoric culture.... because they didn't have writing! :rolleyes:

I was joking with the first part, but seeing as you dishonestly left out part of the definition of history as basically the study of the human past and skipped over the key word also, I thinkt the retraction is yours Sir. :lol:


I'm actually an anthropologist by training, tyvm. And we have all seen "The Gods Must be Crazy." The Bushmen are quite a fascinating culture, especially descriptions of their shaman's trances.

Funny how you hadn't heard of the San people before. Now you call them Bushmen which is actually considered by many to be a bit of a derogatory and outdated term that I doubt would be used by serious anthropologists (due to common parlance some people use the term still in a non-offensive way). It is also interesting that you cite a film produced in apartheid South Africa that was considered by many to be racist, paternalistic and patronising to indigenous cultures. You also inaccurately use the word shaman to describe a culture-set of Southern Africa. The inaccurate use of this word within anthropology when applied to non Altaic Siberian groups of people, to me at least, is just a form of Western academic cultural imperialism.


That's the point. You shouldn't have to "disprove" this mystical being anymore than any other mystical being. Do I have to centaurs? Why should I have to disprove love to say I don't believe in it? (On a side note; that will be taken wildly out of context. I believe in romance, and attraction, and connection and all that. I just think love is too subjective to mean anything. Sometimes people are "in love" and all is fine and dandy. They live happy lives and die that way. Awesome, hope to do it myself. Sometimes people are "in love" and they are purely addicted to each other, usually not even each other, just each other's genetalia.)

Anecdotal and inaccurate terminology, non-sourced and relying on sweeping generalisations as well as a subjective viewpoint.


Win?

What do you think? :lol: Err.......... no.

[Revolution starts with U]

All of which has been seen in the lab

Has it? Really been "seen" in the lab? Deduced is something else.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/86/661/Testing_the_Best-Yet_Theory_of_Nature:_Photons_Found_To_Be_Perfect_ Bosons.html
^ about a guy who is known for pushing QM tests to thei limits (which implies that many others have tested it).
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/20419/373410.aspx#373410
^ a debate with a guy who works with particles every day, in the lab.


Where's the Grand Unifying Theory? :lol:

That's the beauty of science. They will tell you outright they don't know. Comparably, religions inherently have to claim their version of reality as the truest version.
Come off it. Science itself or let's say the many branches of science often come into conflict with each other.



A classical example is the Faint Sun Paradox- I see NoNoXion coveniently skipped over that one too.

Perhaps you could elaborate. Whatever it is, I'm willing to bet most physicists are well aware of it.




I'm not attacking science at all. But when so-called scientists here and comedians make bold statements about science and that everything can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt in order to attack people's spiritual belief I believe they have feet of clay. Science also relies on theories, assumptions and some things because they appear to work without having physical proof of their existence- yet they demand that same sort of concrete evidence from people who are religious/spiritual.
The modern scientific method deals with physical proof first. I don't know why you believed whoever you believed when they said QM has not been tested in the lab, repeatedly... ever heard of CERN?



Let's take another example. Chomsky's LED- had any neurosurgeon ever found the language acquisition device? Has it ever been proven to exist? Do Chomsky's theories actually work for all languages? The answer is no, but it's the best theory to date, so it will suffice for the time being. I don't think Chomsky would claim it to be the GUT of linguistics though.

Linquistics is a social science.

Re the sphynx- you said it could not be dated to 10,000 BCE- quite clearly, despite the scientific method that was applied using geology and astrophysics along with what we know of ancient weather patterns- all sets of data obtained by scientific method. The dating was nothing to do with UFOs, aliens and all that nonsense but you rejected it outright, as did the egyptologists who were too scared it might upset their nice little theories. This is the problem with the scientific community- they too can be dishonest, funnily enough that which some accuse religionists of.
I never rejected it outright. I said one has to bring more than cursory evidence. And that is what the larger archaeological community will tell you as well. Plus, he dated it to 5 or 6k bce, not 8k bce (10k yrs ago).
Plus, once again, archaeology is only half physical science. You would have to dispute, say, radiocarbon dating to debate science. Not some archaeologists interpretation of some Stelle.




I see you edited the definition of history that you posted.:lol:

History (from Greek (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Greek_language) ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation" is the study of the human past.

History can also mean the period of time after writing was invented.

Also is the key word. Sneaky..... :sneaky:

I edited it for clarity. "Also" is not the key word. The key phrase was "the era before the written record is regarded as 'pre-history." If you study sumer, it's history. If you study the bushmen, it's anthropology (more specifically, historical anthropology.) This is virtually undebated dude. It's not something to make a contreversy over.
Description of the past can and are casually referred to as history, as in "the history of the Bush people." But in terms of scholastic endeavors, history deals w the era post invention of writing.



Funny how you hadn't heard of the San people before. Now you call them Bushmen which is actually considered by many to be a bit of a derogatory and outdated term that I doubt would be used by serious anthropologists (due to common parlance some people use the term still in a non-offensive way).
Did you not read what I wrote? Do you not think we had to study the bushmen in intro to anthropology? You're just being a disengenious little shriv now. You make it very hard to keep a calm tone.
I call them Bushmen, because if you translate what they call themselves, it translates to bushmen.

It is also interesting that you cite a film produced in apartheid South Africa that was considered by many to be racist, paternalistic and patronising to indigenous cultures.
That's strange. Not to say that isn't true. But it is strange considering the movie generally showed the bushman to be the smartest person in the movie (hence the title, they "must be crazy.")

You also inaccurately use the word shaman to describe a culture-set of Southern Africa. The inaccurate use of this word within anthropology when applied to non Altaic Siberian groups of people, to me at least, is just a form of Western academic cultural imperialism.
I didn't realize shaman only meant siberian medicine men. We used it regularly, and interchangeable with medicine man, and sorceror.
Once again, this neither is a debatable stance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaman

So one long paragraph of ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you going to keep implying Im a racist and cultural imperialist (as if that hasn't gotten old. Boy who cried wolf much?)?




Anecdotal and inaccurate terminology, non-sourced and relying on sweeping generalisations as well as a subjective viewpoint.

Well, as you would say "derp." That's the whole point. Either the mainstream religionists version of God is correct, and we can prove that wrong (and mostly have). Or your version is, and it is too abstract to have any real meaning. God, in your version, IS just subjective. It's whatever I want to make of it.
Or it doesn't exist at all.
But you know what. The latter two explanations are absolutely meaningless. Atheism is just as meaningless as theism. That's my whole point. If we break God down to your explanation (one I held myself at one point, and in ways still do) it is irrelevant to anything dealing with human empowerment. And only serves as a conversation piece.

[ComradeMan]

I edited it for clarity

:lol:

[Desperado]

So there is no bias involved in science?

There are subconscious biases such as paradigm shift, however the scientific method (post-positivist) is clearly the most objective of all knowledge acquiring methods, and with the rise of computers it is becoming ever more so.


Scientists do not reject theories that might threaten their positions?
You're saying that the scientific method is weak because some people who claim to follow it don't?

[ComradeMan]

There are subconscious biases such as paradigm shift, however the scientific method (post-positivist) is clearly the most objective of all knowledge acquiring methods, and with the rise of computers it is becoming ever more so.

There are plenty of biases because anything "human" is prone to bias- scientists are people too and there are plenty of examples.


You're saying that the scientific method is weak because some people who claim to follow it don't?

No, I am not trying to debunk or attack science, however I do think there are no absolutes and you yourself use the phrase "most objective", i.e. not 100% objective- total objectivity is an impossibility.

[Che a chara]

Frankie Boyle on religion:

4fCnIqYxwBk

[ComradeMan]

Frankie Boyle on religion:



Well after doing some research on the comedian above I see that he perhaps needs a good dose of the milk of human kindness. According to information on the net this "comedian" seems to think it's okay, amongst other things, to mock disabled people and make jokes about Downe's Syndrome suffering children and sexist comments about women for which he has been rebuked and received much controversy and complaint in his native UK. As luck would have it he seems to be in a controversy at the moment for using the words "nigger" and "paki" as part of his "comic" routine.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101223/tuk-frankie-boyle-in-new-language-storm-6323e80.html

If this is the best the anti-theist camp can come up with? Comedians? Nice work.....
:lol:

Here's the Professor of Mathematics of Oxford University, UK.

CJMp6p3tLj4

[Revolution starts with U]

ad hominems do not refute other's arguments. Neither do appeals to authority prove one's position.

[ComradeMan]

ad hominems do not refute other's arguments. Neither do appeals to authority prove one's position.

Well from what I saw his calling people "stupid fucking ****s" was the basis of his argument and not much else- I'd say that were an ad hominem, wouldn't you?

Apart from the fact that there is a kind of plant that burns naturally there is also the possibility that it is down to a mistranslation/scribes error and the Hebrew word סנה "Seneh" (bramble bush) actually refers to סיני Sinai, the place were God is supposed to have appeared to Moses. Sinai itself may mean "glowing" mountain- so yet again this appears to have been a gross misinterpretation and/or error- of course our comedian above probably didn't bother to look into that before launching his vulgar tirade.

Another example of the anti-theists relying (idiotically) on literal translations/errors and interpretations, just like the religionist fanatics. :lol:

Fail.

[Manic Impressive]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o)

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^ Nothing he really says is based on any religious fact, he also is guilty of reification of "religion"- as what? He also seems not to distinguish between the error of humans and a spiritual message.

Poor---- as I say, it seems the hardcore atheists can come up with nothing other than clowns....:lol:

Fail.

[Manic Impressive]

Poor---- as I say, it seems the hardcore atheists can come up with nothing other than clowns....:lol:

Fail.
We are producing clowns to argue with a clown, just to keep things fair.

[ComradeMan]

We are producing clowns to argue with a clown, just to keep things fair.

Yeah like the Professor of Mathematics of Oxford University.

The fact that "you" actually can't argue back at all without falsehoods, fallacies and resorting to distractional vulgar humour says it all.

You have no argument- because there is no argument.

The religious/spiritual person may say "I believe" because "I do" and as justified as the atheist who says "I don't believe" because "I don't"- simple as that. It's absolutely pointless trying to prove or disprove and what seems to be happening is that the atheist camp are rather making asses out of themselves by trying.

[Revolution starts with U]

People aren't convinved there's an invisible man in the sky w a special list of 10 things you're not to do? ANd he will send you to his personal torture chamber if you break his list?
It doesn't matter how YOU interpret the religion, others do interpret it that way. And a lot of people buy into that and are robbed of their money because of it.
And once again, if God is your interpretation, and not this one (the mainstream one), than what does it matter anyway? Why even bring it up? Why get mad about it? Is it going to get you into heaven to defend God?
And uh, it's a spiritual message made by the errors of humanity. That is the atheist point, that God is a spiritual error.

I find it funny the guy who accuses everyone of cultural imperialism would reference a bourgie scientist who says things such as "China didn't invent science because they were not monotheistic." That <~~ is litterally saying "it doesn't matter all the science that came before modern western scientific methods, ours is better, and only developed because we have a better culture." What a ridiculously fallacious argument. If this is the best the theist camp can come up with, they should stick to their clan rallys. ;)
ANd interpreting DNA as a word, and then claiming it must have come from an intelligence?? They was refuted long ago as the "watchmaker fallacy."

As long as we are appealing to authority and not making arguments;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

[ComradeMan]

People aren't convinved there's an invisible man in the sky w a special list of 10 things you're not to do? ANd he will send you to his personal torture chamber if you break his list?
It doesn't matter how YOU interpret the religion, others do interpret it that way. And a lot of people buy into that and are robbed of their money because of it.

I think if you read through my posts you'll find I am also equally as critical of a lot of religionists and if a fundamentalist Christian nutcase came here I would deal with them in likewise manner.


And once again, if God is your interpretation, and not this one (the mainstream one), than what does it matter anyway? Why even bring it up? Why get mad about it? Is it going to get you into heaven to defend God?

Anyone who would only "defend God" to get to heaven would actually invalidate their own position. See Sufism.

What irritates me about the examples that are used against this "blanket" religion, problematic in itself, is that the smart asses who are attacking spiritual belief on the whole are attacking erroneous interpretations and stereotypes to score a cheap point and/or obtain a cheap laugh.

It would be like someone picking up a science book from 60 years ago and attacking science on the basis of outdated and disproven theories.


And uh, it's a spiritual message made by the errors of humanity. That is the atheist point, that God is a spiritual error.

Atheists, hardened materialists don't believe in the spirit so I find it difficult they can talk of spiritual error.


I find it funny the guy who accuses everyone of cultural imperialism would reference a bourgie scientist who says things such as "China didn't invent science because they were not monotheistic." That <~~ is litterally saying "it doesn't matter all the science that came before modern western scientific methods, ours is better, and only developed because we have a better culture." What a ridiculously fallacious argument. If this is the best the theist camp can come up with, they should stick to their clan rallys. ;)

Of course Dawkins and the other "atheists" that were posted here not so long ago are well-known leftists aren't they?

I mean the selfish-gene theory and social darwinism could be used to invalidate a lot of leftists principles. The guy was talking about scientific development which in China came to a halt at the beginning of the European Renaissance. Modern Scientific development in the modern world is largely the result of the European Enlightenment. The reasons behind this are complex but it would be ahistorical to deny this. No one is talking about "superior" cultures or making value judgements.

Poisoning the well with references to the KKK is just crass.


ANd interpreting DNA as a word, and then claiming it must have come from an intelligence?? They was refuted long ago as the "watchmaker fallacy."

Ever heard of metaphor? Of course the veritable Dawkins is famous for his "unproven assertions" such as the "selfish gene" which ascribes a personality trait to a gene and of course the "blind" watchmaker.

No one is appealing to authority- in fact the anti-theists were somewhat appealing to "humorous" authority if you like because they couldn't present any arguments themselves they posted a bunch of comedians who are basically being paid to say things so they can get laughs.

Fail.

[Manic Impressive]

The thread is about a comedian who wrote a little article that was mainly personal about why he is an atheist. You're the one who started critiquing it as if it was written by some noted scholar or great academic. It's Ricky fucking Gervais he's written it in a humorous manner so really we were more justified in posting other comedians views on religion than you were for taking it super srs. Lighten up for fuck sake

[ComradeMan]

The thread is about a comedian who wrote a little article that was mainly personal about why he is an atheist. You're the one who started critiquing it as if it was written by some noted scholar or great academic. It's Ricky fucking Gervais he's written it in a humorous manner so really we were more justified in posting other comedians views on religion than you were for taking it super srs. Lighten up for fuck sake

And when we live in a soul-less and heart-less materialistic world of social-darwinist automatons I suppose they'll be happy....

If he is going to attack and come over "all so sincere" he better do it better than that. I'd be more entertained by someone who tackled religionists with their own ignorance of the religions/belief systems they profess- but hey, they'd actually need to know what they were talking about to do that.

I notice few if none of these "comedians" take on Islam though! :lol:

[Sasha]

I notice few if none of these "comedians" take on Islam though! :lol:


vj1ixEyULi4

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^ Tell them in Denmark what a great sense of humour "Islam" sometimes has.

Anyway these guy are not attacking the Islamic faith nor making jokes about Muhammed, in fact they are basically mocking Islamophobia and not Islam.

Fail.

:rolleyes:

[Desperado]

There are plenty of biases because anything "human" is prone to bias- scientists are people too and there are plenty of examples.

No, I am not trying to debunk or attack science, however I do think there are no absolutes and you yourself use the phrase "most objective", i.e. not 100% objective- total objectivity is an impossibility.

Sure, but you did criticise science on the basis that some scientists aren't really so scientific, which is clearly illogical.

[Che a chara]

I notice few if none of these "comedians" take on Islam though! :lol:

Oh ye of little faith ..... a Frankie Boyle sketch: ('loose women' by the way is a female chat show in England)

vrzBJCy_h6k

:tt2:

[Magón]

cAfuKfmE1Tc

[Revolution starts with U]

I think if you read through my posts you'll find I am also equally as critical of a lot of religionists and if a fundamentalist Christian nutcase came here I would deal with them in likewise manner.

Good. So you concede that Carlin was attacking the popular narrative, and probably the one he was taught. And that, in that context, his argument is valid.




Anyone who would only "defend God" to get to heaven would actually invalidate their own position. See Sufism.

What irritates me about the examples that are used against this "blanket" religion, problematic in itself, is that the smart asses who are attacking spiritual belief on the whole are attacking erroneous interpretations and stereotypes to score a cheap point and/or obtain a cheap laugh.

Or they are attacking what they know. Must they read the latest apologist before they can speak their mind?


It would be like someone picking up a science book from 60 years ago and attacking science on the basis of outdated and disproven theories.

Actually it is more like someone brandishing an outdated science textbook on them and claiming all new science as bullshit. :D



Of course Dawkins and the other "atheists" that were posted here not so long ago are well-known leftists aren't they?

I mean the selfish-gene theory and social darwinism could be used to invalidate a lot of leftists principles. The guy was talking about scientific development which in China came to a halt at the beginning of the European Renaissance. Modern Scientific development in the modern world is largely the result of the European Enlightenment. The reasons behind this are complex but it would be ahistorical to deny this. No one is talking about "superior" cultures or making value judgements.

My point is that you should not be so quick to throw out the "cultural imperialist" charge, when you yourself have no problem citing cultural imperialists. This guy is saying we developed the scientific method because of monotheism, not alongside it. He is claiming our culture to be better, and that their culture could not have developed it. Besides being culturally imperialistic it is a logical fallacy.

FAIL ;)



Poisoning the well... is just crass.

I know, so stop doing it ;)



Ever heard of metaphor? Of course the veritable Dawkins is famous for his "unproven assertions" such as the "selfish gene" which ascribes a personality trait to a gene and of course the "blind" watchmaker.

He doesn't present it as metaphor. He presents it as actually a word, and as a word must have been written by someone. He uses this as one of his justification for belief in God.


No one is appealing to authority- in fact the anti-theists were somewhat appealing to "humorous" authority if you like because they couldn't present any arguments themselves they posted a bunch of comedians who are basically being paid to say things so they can get laughs.

Actually, a lot of people are appealing to authority. You took the initial thread as an appeal to authority (when in fact it was merely a post on one guy's take on things. I don't think the OP was saying "God is fake becaue Ricky Gervais says this..."). I have no problem with such appeals, as there are people who may know better than I.
I just merely wanted to show that I could match your appeal with one of equal calliber. :cool:

Fail.
Nah Brosephus. Dis pure epic win. And srz bznz.
Grow up, read a dictionary, and find a better vocabulary than that used by 12 year old Call of Duty addicts. :thumbdown:

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Aside from actual conference with the creator itself, there can be no such thing whatsoever as an "appeal to authority" on this subject. Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University a christian? So what? It doesnt make him an authority on God. You have attributed an objective worth to him based on institutional (and deserved) recognition in an unrelated field. He might have a professorship in mathematics, but it makes him no more of an authority on God than someone with a professorship in mechanical engineering, or whatever.

Theists point to the existence of the world, solar system, universe as proof of God, but I think this misses the point of the argument; the essence of God is the fundamental point, and that is something unknowable: if God exists, then what is it and what does it expect of us??? The march of the penguins proof of a loving, caring creator? What about the rape of the mallards?:

Or, as the "clown" Stewart Lee puts it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmyZoFChDOQ



Anyone can be an authority on their own abstract, subjective values. Which, without physical, empirical proof - without it revealing itself fully to us - is all God can be.

[ComradeMan]

It was not an appeal to authority- it was more because he challenged Dawkins. The fact that the man is a mathematician at Oxford does not matter as he is not speaking ex cathedra anyway. On the other hand the comedians are ill-informed and doing things for laughs from the audience, for which they get paid.

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

If people are going to challenge religious belief and be taken seriously then they ought to do it on a solid basis in my opinion, otherwise it would be like a popular science reader challenging Stephen Hawkings on astro-physics.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's quite a redundant statement you have seen to taken a liking to :lol:
It basically just says "ignorance is ignorance."

It's spiritual and subjective... what is a "solid ground?" Only what you deem fit?
Some people are atheists because of the religous community... what's the big problem? Why do you start with the assumption that people should believe in God, and if they don't, it's because they haven't been given the proper knowledge (from you no less, I presume)?
The atheists at least have an argument for why you shouldn't believe. Do you have an argument for why anyone should (that does not involve even more belief; the afterlife)?

[ComradeMan]

That's quite a redundant statement you have seen to taken a liking to :lol:
It basically just says "ignorance is ignorance."

No, it's a quote from Carl Sagan actually. What I believe he was saying is that when you are ignorant of the facts the only fact is really your ignorance.


It's spiritual and subjective... what is a "solid ground?" Only what you deem fit?

Like any other field of study if you are going to critique it you need to have the facts. If a creationists/intelligent designist came on here ranting about how evolution was wrong (a position I do not hold either) and overlooked the latest research, new theories and based his or her attack entirely on a superficial reading of Darwin's Origin of the the Species and nothing else then that person would be called out. The same goes for religion/spirituality.


Some people are atheists because of the religous community... what's the big problem? Why do you start with the assumption that people should believe in God, and if they don't, it's because they haven't been given the proper knowledge (from you no less, I presume)?

I don't actually start with the assumption that people should believe in God at all.

What I do notice here is that the attack on "religion", a vast array of differing beliefs and philosophies of approximately 4 billion people, is usually based on a very superficial/shallow knowledge of scripture and the "worst"/fundamentalist ideas of Christian fundamentalists in the US.


The atheists at least have an argument for why you shouldn't believe. Do you have an argument for why anyone should (that does not involve even more belief; the afterlife)?

Inadvertently you've said it all there. The atheists are entitled to an argument as to why they don't believe inasmuch as I or anyone else is entitled to an argument why I or they do believe. However when people start telling ME why I shouldn't believe ACCORDING to THEM there's the problem (and the same is true vice-versa).

Denouncing people as stupid, primitive and "mentally ill" (as some here do) for their own personal beliefs from an atheist point of view is just as narrow-minded and bigotted as religionists/fundamentalists who curse hellfire on the "infidels".

[Revolution starts with U]

No, it's a quote from Carl Sagan actually. What I believe he was saying is that when you are ignorant of the facts the only fact is really your ignorance.

Ya, ignorance is ignorance. If you're ignorant, you're ignorant. It's a little redundant :lol:
I guess he must be using ignorance in the "stubborn against the facts" definition. WHereas I was thinking a "just don't know" definition. In the former, I guess it makes sense. BUt in the latter, it's like calling a television a television.




Like any other field of study if you are going to critique it you need to have the facts. If a creationists/intelligent designist came on here ranting about how evolution was wrong (a position I do not hold either) and overlooked the latest research, new theories and based his or her attack entirely on a superficial reading of Darwin's Origin of the the Species and nothing else then that person would be called out. The same goes for religion/spirituality.

But there's a difference between evolution and spirituality. We can know the truth (or at least a portion of it) about evolution. The best we can come up with for spirituality is metaphor, and it is open to subjective interpretation. It's much like natural rights theories of politics. Why does one have a natural right to property, but not a natural right to killing?




What I do notice here is that the attack on "religion", a vast array of differing beliefs and philosophies of approximately 4 billion people, is usually based on a very superficial/shallow knowledge of scripture and the "worst"/fundamentalist ideas of Christian fundamentalists in the US.

I don't disagree with that. One should critique christianity on christianity, and religion on religion.



Denouncing people as stupid, primitive and "mentally ill" (as some here do) for their own personal beliefs from an atheist point of view is just as narrow-minded and bigotted as religionists/fundamentalists who curse hellfire on the "infidels".

No arguments here. :thumbup1:

[Vanguard1917]

Ricky Gervais doesn't believe in God, but he does campaign for "rights" for farmed poultry. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in God, but he does endorse the immensely idiotic "ethics" of Peter Singer.

Evidently, ridding yourself of religion does not automatically make you a less irrational person than the devout. Secular irrationalism is no better than religious irrationalism. Frankly, in my book, people like Gervais are in no position whatsoever to pat themselves on the back and think that they're any more enlightened than the religious people they like to belittle.