Ricky Gervais on Atheism

Ricky-Gervais-on-Atheism.jpg (201 KB)

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    85 Responses to Ricky Gervais on Atheism

    1. Wow, black really does hide the fat, eh?

      Reply

    2. That makes no sense whatsoever. Believers are not claiming they have superpowers or they are God. They are simply saying, despite not having proof that atheists demand, they have faith that God exists. And there is no burden of proof placed on Gervais or any other atheist. The vast majority of believers don’t give a rat’s ass if atheists believe or not. And even if they do they aren’t demanding they prove God doesn’t exist. Sure, they may debate you on it if you allow them. And they may pray for you, too. But that’s about it.

      Now note I am speaking of Christians. And other non-violent religious groups. Muslims. Well, many of them may very well demand you believe. Or cut off your head.

      Reply

      • You haven’t listened to any debates between Christians and Atheists. I can tell.

        Reply

      • To be honest, I’m not an atheist, but I know several and I understand where he’s coming from.

        Usually the first thing that is asked of an atheist is *why* they don’t believe in God. Because for some reason Atheists are expected to explain why they don’t believe in something that hasn’t been proven to them.

        I can see how irksome that would be after a while. Would you like to spend all your time explaining why you don’t believe in Thor? Assuming you don’t believe in Thor, of course.

        I do think the quote didn’t make it clear what he was speaking about.

        Reply

        • I think part of a discussion or debate or whatever you call it is both sides asking questions and stating their points. It seems perfectly acceptable to me for a believer to ask a non-believer why they don’t believe just as it is acceptable for a non-believer to ask a believer why they believe. The difference is, believers don’t mind explaining their reasoning, but atheists resent having to explain their reasoning. They feel put upon for having to do so.

          The answer there is simply don’t debate it if you don’t wish to.

          Reply

          • Usually it comes down to “there’s not any evidence” for most atheists. It doesn’t take much effort to say that.

            And I don’t know where you have been looking for atheists, but all the atheists I know and know of have no problem explaining their reasoning.

            I guess there could be a question of in what situation and in what company the inquiry is brought forward. But on the Internet it’s the Christians that run away from debate and discussion a majority of the time, at least in my experience.

            Reply

          • The resentment is that there are many who insist the atheist come up with a positive affirmation to a negative position. While certainly not all of the faithful are so … pushy… it is hard to keep reacting calmly to folks who require direct demonstration of the lack of existence of a creator by someone whose primary foil is something like “it’s all too beautiful to not have been created by an intelligence”.

            Gervais makes a strong point that if one proposes something to be existent the burden of argument is on the proposer, not the skeptic. It is sound to demand evidence of evolution, of the big bang etcetera but problematic to demand that someone provide proof of error for a notion that is fundamentally nearly impossible to falsify.

            Reply

          • dallasalice, if you believe in something, the impetus is on you to prove it exists.

            The burden of proof is not on me to prove something that hasn’t been proven to me. It’s a smokescreen to deflect scrutiny from the person who does believe in something.

            Imagine if the scientific community did this. When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, he would have sounded like a jackass to ask why people didn’t believe in it. The burden was on him to explain why it was true.

            For instance, I don’t believe in Thor because he hasn’t been proven to exist to me. I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist. Asking me to explain why is ignorant and pointless.

            Reply

      • Christians are non-violent?

        If murdering millions of people over almost two millennium, raping nuns and children, and abetting the proliferation of AIDS is “non-violent” I’d hate to see your definition of violent. Christians are way ahead of those skeerry Muslins.

        Reply

        • Even the peaceful buddhists have used violence in the past, you can have hindu suicide bombers. Muslims and Christians have waged many wars, and although Islamic extremists give Islam a bad name – it is a good foundation for a society, and doesn’t require you kill anyone. Point is they’re all guilty. I think its the people, not the religions. Violence is a big part of nature and even Darwin’s picture of evolution. They’re all bad as each other.

          Also – Ricky Gervais… I don’t give two shits what you believe, your a funny little snub nosed man – you are there to make me laugh, stay out of philosophical debate. Hope and faith are foundations of belief – proof is something tangible for scientists to rationise. Its impractical in everyday life. No matter how much they explain the ‘how’ – they can never touch the ‘why’.

          Religion is like having an asshole. Everybody has one, but it’s better to keep it to yourself.

          Reply

          • I don’t think you got one thing right there except the part about religious people being violent.

            Comedians should stay out of politics and religion? Tell that to George Carlin, one of the greats. Among other things, you don’t know comedy.

            Religion might have been a good foundation for society back in the day when we didn’t have secular alternatives. But now we do. Religion is just superstition that hopefully will die out soon.

            Science has done much for everyday life. Where would you (not you in particular, for obvious reasons) be without education? Where would society be? How about electricity? How about skeptical thought in conversation with peddlers of snake oil?

            Religion doesn’t explain the ‘how’ and it also does not explain the ‘why’. If you insist that this is the case I will ask you questions about your god to which you will answer “we don’t/can’t know” or “it’s a mystery”. Also, an explanation is useless unless you can prove that it holds water.

            Science wins, you lose.

            Reply

            • Haha science wins? You underestimate your own ignorance. 99% of modern scientific discoveries are made by people very much engrossed in spiritual beliefs. Shit – look at anyone of historical significance, whoa they all believed in something. What an amazing co-incidence! All the greatest minds believed in a higher power. Did you know TV was invented by an ‘occultist’ passing gases through a cathode tube, hoping to view spirits? Back seat science fans like you sit there with your ‘new scientist’ tab open, pretending you understand, when really you are just sitting on the shoulders of giants and laughing at their beliefs. Yes education AND science are important. But we’d have fuck all if it wasn’t for religion unifying us and creating stable societies. Science knows a lot, but it cannot answer everything, and you’d be foolish to ignore wisdom handed down from times so remote your tiny brain cannot even comprehend. Phew! Point is – don’t throw out the baby with the bath-water. There’s some powerful stuff in their.

              Reply

            • Also feel free to ask questions about ‘my God’ – I bet you 1 internets I can answer.

              Reply

            • So what if they were religious? You think they used the bible to advance science? Of course not. That’s like saying their hair color mattered in the invention of TV instead of the science and technological advancement that lead up to that point in time. So don’t be silly.

              What wisdom are you talking about that I am apparently ignoring? Tell me the most profound thing you have learned from religion. Preferably something that everyone all over the world doesn’t know. Yes, this is me calling your bluff.

              As for the questions about the Christian god:
              Why can’t he forgive without blood sacrifice? Why does he claim to be good when he pretty much does everything typical of a dictator?
              Why is faith important?

              Reply

          • It was smart of you to back out of the comedy discussion, btw. Knowing when you are beat is a very crucial trait for a religious person.

            Reply

        • Christians were certainly violent a few centuries ago – specifically the Catholic Church with the Crusades – but those days are long gone. Most Muslim societies are still locked in those times in pretty much every way and violence is a way of life for them. Radical Islamists are killing atheists in the areas under their control, along with gays, and adulterers, and anyone else who does not adhere to Islam. Christians, with a few exceptions, are just praying for them.

          Reply

          • You’re ignorant of world events if you think the destruction of the world (dramatic wording!) by the hands of Christianity is a thing of the past. Sure, it might look more civilized, but in the end people die and suffer.

            Reply

            • Sup! outta replies on the other thread lol.

              I am suprised by such an attitude from someone called Korinthian (jks!) please do explain 馃槢

              >Tell me the most profound thing you have learned from religion.

              Christ once said “Be as sly as a snake, and as simple as a dove”

              >Why can鈥檛 he forgive without blood sacrifice?

              Because he is blood thristy

              >Why does he claim to be good when he pretty much does everything typical of a dictator?

              When did he claim to be good? Also – he is benevolent. Wanna make pancakes? Then you gotta break eggs.

              >Why is faith important?

              Because it shapes your reality. Science is just beginning to realise and prove this.

              Jumping back a step though, you assume my God to be Christian? Why is that? Also – the questions you ask relating to the Christian god (Jehova or Yahyew), IMO these are two seperate gods in the old testament – Demi gods if you like. The ‘word’ mentioned as a creative force is like the overall Boss god. Jehova is fallible – because he’s not the top dog. Jesus supercedes old testament (jealous angry) god.

              Oh and the ‘word’ is like so awesome our tiny brains would explode trying to explain it.

              Also; Christianity as it is presented today is missing a lotta info. Christianity has some interesting esoterical history. There are occultists around today that consider the Bible to be the most powerful spell book in existence.

              Reply

            • You just gave up, didn’t you? Way to go from serious to jokey when you realized you had lost.

              Better luck next time.

              Reply

            • Dude at which point was I joking?

              Also – nobody loses in this thread. Its a moot subject, its nice to hear other peoples opinions.

              Reply

            • I’ve seen religious people back out of an argument before, and it looks exactly like that. Smileys and nonsense.

              So think twice before you start an argument you can’t finish. But most of all I’d appreciate if you at least thought once.

              I’d ask what wishy-washy New Age faith you adhere to, but I doubt you even know. Mind you, I’d ask only to be polite (but I’m really not), as spiritual people are as shallow and uninteresting as you can get.

              So bring something to the table that doesn’t reinforce my points or I’m going to start feeling sorry for you.

              Reply

    3. It鈥檚 a bad analogy.
      It鈥檚 easy to prove he can鈥檛 fly, throw him off a roof. A low roof so he only breaks a leg and doesn鈥檛 kill himself.

      Reply

    4. What does it matter if a person believes or doesn’t believe in god? What difference does it make? If you’ve got faith in your own beliefs, those with different beliefs shouldn’t really matter.

      Seems to me that those who choose to make an issue of others beliefs are those who don’t have a lot of faith in their own.

      Reply

      • It matters because religion suppresses freedoms. You would say that it would be unconstitutional to force a religion on another person, but thats whats happening with every religious parent.

        In an ideal society, parents would teach their children to become their own person with their own beliefs, instead of forcing theirs.

        In the middle east, its customary to carry out honor killings. And it happens all the time. Even in the states.

        You ask why does the belief in God matters? Because people are getting killed over God every day. Religion is sexist, racist, genocidal, and inhumane.

        Thats why it matters. As long as people are getting hurt, killed, and deprived of human rights, EVERYONE should make it an issue to stop the problem at the source.

        Which, of course is the belief in God.

        Reply

        • Yeah, belief informs actions.

          Reply

        • Is the source the belief in God or the intolerance of differences of opinion on the matter?

          Reply

          • The source is human nature, but the mechanism by which a person may justify their terrible deeds as “moral” or “good” is belief in God and the dogmas of the religion. Religious belief doesn’t cause people to be terrible in all cases, but it does let those people sleep at night by convincing them the evils they do are good and righteous.

            Reply

            • I think you are half right. I agree that the true source of many of the evils of the world is human nature. No more, no less.
              However while Religious beliefs have indeed been a widely used justification for evil actions, I’ve known just as many atheistic people to justify their evil without the benefit of religion, and still sleep like babies.
              I think people find it too easy to lay the blame at the feet of religion, when the true problem with the world is human nature. Perhaps it is more frightening to face this reality than the alternatives.

              Reply

            • I think it’s faith or strong belief in something. It doesn’t have to be religion. Dictators that have tried to eliminate any type of religious belief can be extremely fanatical in whatever their doctrine is.

              Reply

    5. I tried to reply to the comment by ian but it wouldn’t work so let me say it here. His comment that belief in God is the main cause of war and killing int he world is contradicted by well, let’s see, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, and pretty much every other war and political oppression of people committed by non-religious Communist governments. People kill and hurt and oppress people for an unfortunate wide variety of reasons, religion and belief in God being only one of them. And it is a dated reason at that – except for Islam now.

      Reply

    6. I never said that religion is the main cause of all wars and violence. Only a majority of it, but not all I assure you.
      Fighting over resources and political beliefs and gains are just a part of life. Its something that comes standard with civilization. There is no way around it.

      But religion on the other hand is different. It is a outdated system of beliefs that tried to explain the unexplainable. But now we have evolved beyond the the need for religion. With our modern technology and sciences, many of those questions we had, had been answered (and, with much to the dismay of the religious community, many of our discoveries have contradicted the religious teachings).

      You see, we no longer need religion to explain the world. Take this as an example that I’ve heard from somewhere I don’t remember: Lets say your lost in a forest. Its already dark and your off-trail with no map or flashlight. In daytime you could find your way out easily, but now there is no way you can get out of the forest without help. Along comes a crazy old man who is blind as a bat. He claims that he can get you out of the forest. You follow him around for hours on end until the sun comes up.

      Lo and behold, you manage to spot the trail out of the corner of your eye. As you start towards the trail, the crazy old blind man grabs hold of your arm and tells you again that he knows the way out.

      So you are presented with two choices: The logical choice of course is to thank the old blind man for his help, regardless of his misdirection, and take the trail out of the forest.

      The illogical choice would to ignore the trail and follow the crazy blind man around the forest.

      You see, we are at the point where we don’t need religion to explain our world for us anymore. We don’t need religion to teach us virtues. The average person wants to be good not because he or she wants to get into heaven, but because he or she wants to be good for the sake of being a good person.

      @asymon:

      But the important thing, in my opinion of course, is not to force atheism. That would negate the whole point in my opinion. Its important to have people understand that they no longer need religion and embrace atheism.

      Now don’t get me wrong, there will be lots of people who will find other excuses to go out and kill, but at least there won’t be the ridiculous excuse of religion anymore. And that, I believe, is a small step out of the shadow of ignorance.

      (And where not just talking about war and death and killing here. Abrahamic Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam also promotes sexism, racism, and the supression of human rights)

      Reply

    7. Wow you “atheists” certainly seem more level headed and happy…

      Reply

    8. only an actor or a faggot hippy (or both) would think this was clever

      you need to be so full of yourself that you would compare yourself to God

      I’m not religious. But I’d never be pretentious enough to declare myself “atheist”. I like ‘don’tgiveashitiest’ better. Once you take a stance and start presuming you have anything about spirituality or the meaning of existence figured out you have lost at the game of life.

      If there was any proof available there would only be on religion and no violence as a result of it and probably a whole hell of a lot less violence all together. But who wants to live like that? If there was a God and a promise of a kickass afterlife as long as you don’t fuck up too much while you’re on earth or whatever then the logical course would be mass suicide the world over to avoid fucking up and then just riding out eternity like a boss.

      These discussions may seem intelligent and mature but they are in fact faggotgay and boring and saturated with hippy left wing nutcase blabberings about how good their own balls look (Okay I didn’t read through all of them).

      What’s wrong?

      DONKEY KONG!

      Reply

      • That doesn’t sound like you don’t give a shit to me.

        Atheism is the only sensible position and it doesn’t preclude that you need to understand all of the universe and ‘spirituality’ (whatever that means). Believe it? Fine. You don’t believe it? You’re an atheist.

        Don’t be a pussy, step away from superstition that you obviously still cling to.

        Then you can be a troll with a round vocabulary that’s right about something for once.

        Reply

        • @Korinthian

          This quote says a lot about Mags’ outlook on life, doesn’t it?

          “These discussions may seem intelligent and mature but they are in fact faggotgay and boring and saturated with hippy left wing nutcase blabberings about how good their own balls look (Okay I didn鈥檛 read through all of them).”

          I imagine Mags’ voice sounds like the guy in the Powerthirst commercial.

          Reply

        • Atheism is a conscious decision to commit to a way of thinking you fucking idiot. I just don’t care.

          The only sensible position? What are you 15?

          Grow up, pissant. I remember being awake for almost half of intro to philosophy and that was more than enough to basically shit all over every retard science first asshole like you who thinks they have it all figured out because they were told they have it all figured out by someone else who also did not have anything at all figured out.

          Are you able to recognize that even your science teacher can’t provide reason to the beginning of the galaxy? Ya it came from somewhere, Corky. Try and wrap your head around a little more abstract and broad thinking even for a second and you’ll see just how atheism is just as if not much more stupid and asinine than any religion.

          Don’t cite comedians as your source of inspiration for intellectual advancement either. In fact take a vow of silence. Do those include writing? Yours will. Take about a year off and come back when you’re not a complete retard anymore.

          Reply

          • How was Galaxy formed?

            You can’t explain that.

            Reply

          • If you haven’t bothered to look up what “atheist” means, then I guess you won’t understand it if I explain it to you in monosyllables.

            I’d love to hear what your philosophy 101 taught you that makes you think you are right (another thing you can’t prove, incidentally). And judging from the usual stream of wisdom that flows from your keyboard you’re not likely to elaborate.

            We have a good explanation for the beginning of the galaxy: hydrogen gas + gravity. Quite a simple process, really. Perhaps you meant “the universe” though, although I would think you’d know the difference.

            I haven’t claimed any comedian to be an inspiration of intellectual advancement in recent memory, but as someone that thinks I must now inform you of the following:

            Ideas can come from any source.

            Not that I would mind admitting to having a comedian as a muse, though, the best ones are usually really smart and very observant.

            Oh, and I’ll take that vow when you beat me in a discussion. I’d ask you to do the same, but #1: I don’t like silencing people (which is why I never down-vote you), #2: You are not an honorable and honest person.

            I love that you called me “Corky” btw, such a step up from “dumbface” and “gayfag”. I encourage you to expand beyond the capacity of any angry person on the net.

            Reply

      • Mags, from the bottom of my heart, you amuse the living shit out of me.

        Only you could be outraged over someone saying they don’t believe in something you don’t believe in.

        If I said smurfs are blue, you would get pissed off.

        BTW, this is the most well thought out thing you have ever written:

        “If there was any proof available there would only be on religion and no violence as a result of it and probably a whole hell of a lot less violence all together. But who wants to live like that? If there was a God and a promise of a kickass afterlife as long as you don鈥檛 fuck up too much while you鈥檙e on earth or whatever then the logical course would be mass suicide the world over to avoid fucking up and then just riding out eternity like a boss.”

        Reply

        • The most well thought out thing I’ve ever written is about 230 pages long and worth more than the sum equity of your entire family tree dating back as far as your gimp ass parents have traced it for you, retard.

          I said I don’t care. No that I agree. Not that I take a stance and say “no, thousands of years of history. You’re wrong and I’m right cause I went to school!”. I just don’t give a shit.

          You’re a loser.

          Reply

          • If you don’t care, then why the perpetual vitriolic outrage?

            Nah, Mags, I believe you. But here’s some friendly advise: When you overact to everything like a 13 year old boy who is connected to an IV of liquid PCP, people will have trouble believing you.

            Also, I would really like to see a 230 page document written by you.

            What was it? A book? A thesis? Did you type fag a hundred thousand times on your mom’s laptop?

            Reply

    9. Oh shit, Ricky Gervais is set to become the new moldy bible!

      Reply

    10. I’m really confused about whether or not maggie is arguing for believers or against them or something else.

      Reply

      • At the risk of demonstrating that my sarcasmeter is broken, Mags isn’t arguing for or against either theists or antheists. He JDGAF. He doesn’t believe, but I think he also believes that discarding a way of thinking that seems irrational, and cannot be proved does not automatically put you in a better position than those that do.

        To be honest, while I don’t agree with him on a number of things, I like his stance on this topic. The argument is indeed pointless. Religious folks don’t have to prove anything, because their beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith, which by definition, is a belief in something *sans* evidence. Atheistic folks shouldn’t be arguing with religious folks, because their beliefs are, in fact, grounded entirely in the process of proving theories.

        I think that if each side were being honest with themselves, they would realize that there is no reason to butt heads, at least based solely on a belief in an unverifiable entity (or lack thereof) alone, and in fact there should not even be a conflict because each way of thinking operates in completely different, and entirely unrelated paradigms.

        Both the ills of the world, like oppression of free will/thought, violence, etc, and acts of kindness like philanthropy, humanitarian aid, etc. occur both in secular and non-secular environments, and can therefore be attributed solely to the one thing that supersedes both: human nature. Regardless of what superficial banner, (religion, greed, hate, ignorance, goodness, kindness, altruism, whatever) these behaviors occur under, they are all a function of individual beliefs, biased, for better or worse, by their past experiences and innate nature.

        The real problem, as I see it, is that too many proponents from both sides never show the other side even a modicum of tolerance, understanding and respect. I think this is really why a lot of conflicts occur between the two sides.

        Reply

        • Nicely said. I’ve been guilty more than once.

          Reply

        • So you don’t think having good reasons for what you believe is preferable to just believing anything at all?

          I’m sorry, but I don’t think you really believe that.

          You also don’t believe ideas should be discussed? You don’t believe that harmful ideologies should be criticized?

          Yours is the thinking of a victim and an enabler.

          Reply

          • Never forget that the ideologies are thought by people, persons, human beings. Most of the people I know IRL are believers of one kind or another. If I dismissed them, out of hand, because of their beliefs (or they me) I’d be a very lonely person. My family is extremely liberal, even the few religious ones, but I live in a very conservative area…I do just fine.

            Reply

          • Where did I say that ideas should not be discussed? Where do I propose that harmful ideologies should not be criticized?

            You are engaging in “straw man” reasoning. You have no rational or logical basis for accusing me of thinking as a victim or an enabler. And you’ve just proved my point. Your statements all end in question marks, but you are not actually asking me any questions. You’ve already decided what you think I believe.

            Everybody reads, and argues, however few try to actually understand. Why is it so difficult for people to actually ask questions, and listen to peoples responses, instead of making unfounded inferences and accusations?

            In response to questions you chose not to ask:

            1. The “good” in the phrase “…having good reasons for what you believe…” is a relative term. A good reason for one person or in a particular paradigm, is not a good reason in others. For an atheist/scientist, religion could just be some crazy idea that some primitive human being came up with to describe how we came to be. For religious folk, it could be hope in the face of great odds, or a source of strength in the face of great trials or oppression, no matter how irrational it may be.

            Every individual I have ever gotten to know to any degree, both of the theistic and atheistic variety, exhibits some irrational behavior of one sort or another, and I don’t think anyone has the right to deny another their irrationality so long as it is not harmful to others. And yes, “harmful to others” is also subject to interpretation.

            2. Harmful ideologies should absolutely be discussed and criticized, however people on both sides make the mistake of treating every ideology they disagree with as though it were harmful. The truth is, there is good and bad in everything, and if they were truly thinking rationally about it, they would realize that not only are there are an equal number of harmful ideologies that come from their own ways of thinking, but there are also beneficial aspects to be found in almost every way of thinking.

            I am not arguing that the inquisitive scientific mind should stop asking questions when it comes to religion. However I *am* saying is it us unreasonable and irrational to expect a scientific answer from a person whose way of thinking is non-scientific in nature.

            It is also innately unscientific to take only the bad attributes, or negative samples of any belief system and use that as a basis for what should rightly be a comprehensive scientific analysis of that system. And yet I see supposedly scientific people do this every day.

            Both sides have massive flaws. I wish people would stop an think long enough to realize neither side is better off, more enlightened or smarter than the other, and focus on trying to understand each other as people instead.

            Reply

            • You did say atheist shouldn’t argue with religious folk about religion. This answers your first paragraph.

              The argument is not pointless, as it forces out into the light the bigotry and bad reasoning of religious people. Heck, it even helps people get away from religion.

              “The 鈥済ood鈥 in the phrase 鈥溾aving good reasons for what you believe鈥︹ is a relative term.”

              Is this where you pretend that you don’t understand what I meant by “good reason”? And you accuse me of chopping down straw men? How tiring.

              “And yes, 鈥渉armful to others鈥 is also subject to interpretation.”

              Except that most of the time it is very easy to spot. This comes over as a poor excuse for religion and makes me wonder (once again) if you’re just laying out platitudes you learned from a Dalai Lama email.

              “ruly thinking rationally about it, they would realize that not only are there are an equal number of harmful ideologies that come from their own ways of thinking, but there are also beneficial aspects to be found in almost every way of thinking.”

              The problem is that one side bases their ideology on bronze age rules and laws that have only stuck around because they are part of a religion. Most of the things nobody rational would adhere to if the ideas stood on their own.

              The point here isn’t “people are both good and bad” (no, really?). It is this: religious people are *not* rational when it comes to their religion. If beliefs inform action, what effect do dumb beliefs have?

              “However I *am* saying is it us unreasonable and irrational to expect a scientific answer from a person whose way of thinking is non-scientific in nature.”

              Here’s the deal: their thinking is not non-scientific in nature. In any other area of their life they don’t believe just any silly claim unless they have evidence. Religious people try and try to explain how Jesus is *too* real using whatever means they can.

              This is where atheists win and where the clever and honest religious people realize that their god is just as real as the rest of paranormality.

              “And yet I see supposedly scientific people do this every day.”

              So? What has this to do with anything?

              “Both sides have massive flaws. I wish people would stop an think long enough to realize neither side is better off, more enlightened or smarter than the other, and focus on trying to understand each other as people instead.”

              All things are not equal just because you want them to be. False beliefs may be comforting, but you have yet to explain how they are on par with modern, secular humanism. One of them comes with tons of baggage and does not put the rights of the individual first, can you guess which one I’m referring to?

              Reply

            • 1. You cannot argue scientific fact with someone whose belief system is supposed to be based on faith. If you don’t understand why that is the case, then I believe your understanding of scientific principle is flawed.

              2. “Good” reasons for whatever a person believes in are not universal. Yours is not the only valid measure of what is a “Good” reason to do or believe in something is, and it is simply arrogance to believe so.

              3. I am not a fan of moral relativism, however it is true that what is right for one person is not right for another. Anyone who makes the blanket statement “Religion is harmful to others.” Is missing that point, and is also forgetting that for some people it simply works better than secularism, because it is based on intangibles.

              4. When we talk about the rules of any way of thinking, the irrationality I mentioned before appears regardless of the source of those rules. Bronze age dogma, vs modern day scientific elitism/egocentrism, neither is more rational than the other.

              And, more importantly, Both sides become equally defensive when their beliefs are attacked, whether they are religious or not. It is not a trait that only religious people exhibit, as you seem to believe.

              5. Sure some religious people try to explain religion in scientific terms. I didn’t say that makes any more sense than than atheists trying to make scientific sense of religion. Both approaches are equally and deeply flawed.

              6. Again, religious thinking is NOT scientific thinking. The fact that religious folks try to make parallels doesn’t make it true. If you don’t understand why this is the case, then I don’t think you understand religion either.

              7. I really don’t care about things being equal. You seem to think that your way of thinking is smarter, cleverer, and superior to those that are religious. That is simply arrogance talking, not logic or rationality. Believing in science does not automatically make a person any more rational than a person who holds religious beliefs.

              Some people need intangibles in order to keep going. Sometimes the independent conviction it provides is more useful, and more effective as a motivator than others. Some humans can walk through life not knowing anything about anything. Others need to have answers, some kind of structure, a reason for being, even if it makes no sense.

              And there are people like that across the board, not just religious folk. It is simply a function of human nature. And everyone has the right to decide for themselves how to deal with that dilemma. We each pick our own poison. I guess it is also human nature for everyone to believe their poison is better than everyone elses, but it simply isn’t true.

              You cannot place these ways of thinking on a scientific balance and say one is better than the other. It ignores the fact that *people* are different. You seem to believe that modern secular humanism is so much better than religion. But I see the same flawed lessons that are often learned in religious contexts also learned in secular contexts.

              It is no better at conquering human flaws, irrational thinking and emotions than any other way of thinking. You’ve simply traded one set of rules for another, but are still dealing with the same, flawed humans you had before.

              None of your arguments have been about understanding humans at an individual level, only making wide sweeping assumptions about groups of people. And yet you claim to rile against the oppression of individuality of religion, which, incidentally, is also a flawed presumption.

              I don’t have any problems with modern Secular Humanism, I think it’s a good thing, but in my admittedly irrelevant opinion, your arguments have not showcased it’s strengths particularly well either.

              Reply

    Leave a Comment



    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas