Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert discuss atheism



Stolen from the internet.

I found myself confused if Colbert was satirizing the religious side or not. If he wasn't, then I could hardly call that a defense.

Not that yelling science over and over is a particularly great argument.

diehard03 said:

---

I found myself confused if Colbert was satirizing the religious side or not. If he wasn't, then I could hardly call that a defense.

---

I think I remember seeing an interview somewhere where he talked about his catholic faith.

Quote:

---

I think I remember seeing an interview somewhere where he talked about his catholic faith.

---

I know he's a devout catholic. It was just a horrible effort from his side. The "one less god than you" is a feeble argument because it doesn't say anything about the veracity of his religious claim. Secondly, of the things to "go hard" on, I was surprised that he chose the yell loudly about disbelieving the big bang. It only served to allow Ricky to make him look foolish.

This is why I was hoping that it was just a bad attempt at satire.

Out of curiosity, which arguments do you think he should have used?

Gervais did a pretty lousy job, imo.

Quote:

---

Not that yelling science over and over is a particularly great argument.

---

It's not, and he punted too soon with his "thats a good point" stuff. The counter argument was simple: "God would give us another holy book if he deemed fit. The existence of a holy book doesn't determine the existence of God".

Quote:

---

Out of curiosity, which arguments do you think he should have used?

Gervais did a pretty lousy job, imo.

---

Personally, I don't believe we can prove the existence (or disprove) outside of our own experiences, so actually 'winning the debate' it it's merits is impossible.

I just think trying to discuss Hawking like a faith preacher is a rough look.

IMO, a better exchange. Admittedly the format allowed for a deeper discussion than likely for a late night talk show aired on commercial TV.

Two guys who used to be funny a long time ago.

It's funny I think the capricious and inconsistent nature of human emotion and interpretation of personal experiences is probably one of the worst methods for determining truth. And that there are a number of fact claims revealed religions make which may be evaluated through historical and scientific lenses.

Aggrad,

I agree a bit- we can study history, but that only takes you so far. We should always seek the truth. However Then you must experience God, it is a personal encounter. Bible is filled with encounters with God. Peter, Paul and other saints. Newton - wrote song amazing grace, mother Teresa riding a train, myself - booboo- God telling me the solution is love.

Relationship and love are key to Christian experience. God is love. So we encounter God by love. Giving ourselves away and caring for others.

You can read all the books in world, but without love you miss the most important thing to us - God

JJMt said:

---

I am a committed and devout Christian, but I strongly resist the argument that our faith rests on a subjective personal experience. Our faith is true regardless of one's personal experience or lack thereof. Lots of people of profound faith have never had any particular experience as part of their faith.

To the contrary, the Christian faith rests on truth. And the Christian faith is also a historical faith. Both points can readily withstand any test that reason can throw at them.

---

JJMt,

1) I completely agree our faith relies on truth. Agree our faith is a historical faith- reason why Pontius Pilate is mentioned in Apostles Creed and Nicenean Creed. It is a historical marker- time/date/location stamp. On the Truth of the Christian Faith.

We should fully pursue the truth. Study the history of the faith, historical evidence and read the bible in proper context (understanding intended audience & background, writing style)

2) But also our faith is experiencing Jesus (personal experience). It is loving others. When we love and care we connect to mankind and God.

It does us No good to read all the books of the religions"become book smart" and not put it into action. This is where life experiences help us understand. Having children, having a loving father in our life help us relate to the unseeable God. Also the other way- making mistakes in our life help us see the truth (what not to do).

I'm not sure I can agree with your statement. Faith is engendered by experience of, contact with, union into the Divine. A deep faith without experience of God seems to be a ontological impossibility.

How are you defining experience?

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

If this were true, I would still be a Christian.

---

I am truly and deeply sad to hear that, Sapper. I am as profoundly skeptical as anyone, yet have found Christianity to be as well- or better-evidenced than any belief system out there. Don't give up; there are lots of deeply rational skeptics who have found or returned to the faith. In fact, I am one, having found the key to unlock my skeptical barrier to faith in my late 40s or early 50s.

---

Why did it take you so long? My 2 cents it is because you are wiser in life experiences, you see what works and what doesn't work. You have had the ability to Love others.

Myself, was always a believer but my faith really took off after I became a father (30s-loving my children). Realizing my selfish twenties were not the right way to live. Note: I was living the way the world said I should live- seek pleasure all the time- ME, ME, ME- it is ALL about ME!


Being a father/parent- God stacks the deck in our favor in helping us understand and see the face of Jesus. You do this when you raise your children. Children are like a stranger that rush into your life-

Matt 25 35- 36 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Matt 18 4-5 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Love, Love, Love, All You Got to Do is Love, It is So Simple, Love (command to go do it).

Reading about it is great, but we have got to put it into action. Go be the hands, feet and mouth of Jesus.

Adding on to comments that we experience God/Jesus by giving and receiving love.

1) Was listening to Catholic Answers and they had visiting guest- Professor Paul Vitz- topic was "The Psychology of Atheism" in show he poses his theory that not having a strong male role model are more likely to be atheist

He covers life of many of the atheist from past 200 years and goes over the relationship with fathers/ or strong male role models. He also said- that those that struggle socially (don't like interacting with people- Aspergers ) also lean to be atheist.

2) My 2 cents, this is logical. It is difficult for folks to understand/relate to a loving father God when they don't have one in their life. Dad's are key to the faith (lots of stats show something like 70% of children continue on in faith with strong faithfiled father role model). Also if people are socially awkward they don't encounter the love from strangers (they are shunned or do not participate when they are welcomed).

PRof. Paul Vitz- Psycology of Atheism- read bottom for defective father comments and examples

Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty, the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to hate his own father-or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses is a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer, blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so, perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer. For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.

JJMt said:

---

It's hard to love, love, love, though, booboo if you don't believe or if you're having a hard time believing.

My skepticism was based on my belief, like many on this board, that science and Christianity are diametrically opposed, and that science was a more reliable source of truth and knowledge.

What removed my skepticism was meeting a world class scientist, who was also a Christian, and is one of the most intellectually honest people I've ever met. He opened my eyes to the limitations of science, and how science, although a powerful tool, is an awfully weak reed on which to build any understanding of ultimate truth.

---

1) I can fully understand, if you bought the lie that science and Christian religion are opposed. As you know they are not. They are compatible, they answer different questions. Seek the truth and you will find God.

2) Completely Disagree. Every one knows (even Atheist) know they are called to love. Right and wrong is written on everyones heart- the golden rule. (St. Paul in Romans mentions this about the Gentiles). I also find that No one disputes with Jesus (how he lived his life and calls us to love, to be the selfless servant). Note: they will say Jesus is a myth, he is not God, but Everyone agrees that we should do what Jesus says- love and care for others.

Side note: K2- we need to go grab a beer or lunch. I am currently dropping my son off for lacrosse practice at the baseball fields - Hammerly that is looking at your Orthodox Church.

Exactly, the only way to believe this is to hold faith in much higher regard than a mountain of scientific and historical evidence. If the same 'skepticism' of scientific claims was applied to the historical and 'scientific' claims of deniers they wouldn't hold up all.

And if by ignoring and disregarding all contrary historical and scientific evidence disproving a particular religions claims is acceptable than its acceptable for any religious claim. You cannot make fun of the Mormons for bad history as they are as free to ignore it as you.

Nice. I live and work a ways from there but would be fun sometime.

Quote:

---

It's funny I think the capricious and inconsistent nature of human emotion and interpretation of personal experiences is probably one of the worst methods for determining truth. And that there are a number of fact claims revealed religions make which may be evaluated through historical and scientific lenses.

---

I don't disagree and it was part of my point. If I believe due to a personal experience with what I think is the divine, I cannot prove that to you in any way. I don't know that I agree with the second sentence. if some historical event could be proven to not occurred, I am not sure that invalidates anything. One then has to question what it means within the sacred text.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Nice. I live and work a ways from there but would be fun sometime.

---

I guess I will subscribe (first time every) and send you an email. I live in the area. YBIC- Booboo

Sure, many here interpret the text more liberally and a lack of historicity changes nothing much about their faith. Others, who are dogmatic that the text is perfect have much more to think about in such a case.

Quote:

---

Well, what about the resurrection of Christ? Even Paul agrees that if it did not occur then we Christians are all fools. The historical evidence for it is overwhelming, but if it were possible to prove a negative, i.e., that it did not occur, then it would most definitely invalidate Christianity.

---

For sure, if we are talking about critical tenets of a faith, then yeah. I was thinking about some superfluous details that many people point to as proof of invalidation.

JJMt said:

---

It's hard to love, love, love, though, booboo if you don't believe or if you're having a hard time believing.

My skepticism was based on my belief, like many on this board, that science and Christianity are diametrically opposed, and that science was a more reliable source of truth and knowledge.

What removed my skepticism was meeting a world class scientist, who was also a Christian, and is one of the most intellectually honest people I've ever met. He opened my eyes to the limitations of science, and how science, although a powerful tool, is an awfully weak reed on which to build any understanding of ultimate truth.

---

And where exactly did this scientists point to the Bible and say "that is the most logical and provable book of all the religious books"?

booboo91 said:

---

Side note: K2- we need to go grab a beer or lunch. I am currently dropping my son off for lacrosse practice at the baseball fields - Hammerly that is looking at your Orthodox Church.

---

I play Disc Golf at Moffit Park a few times a month.

So why mention your scientist buddy if they really had nothing to do with you specifically believing the Bible to be really God's words?