So you just ignored the part, where he said, if we destroy everything religion it won't come back the same, but if we destroy everything science it will come back the same.

@eptheorem4681

Ай бұрын

Not sure what do you actually think that this statement achieves. First, the reality ( not some fictional hypothesis) is that christianity is still here after about 2000 years and pretty much the same, where as scientific ideas are constantly revised as our knowledge and understanding of reality changes. And second … it seems to me you treat it as if it is a statement of fact or a scientific statement , when in reality is just a nicely coined phrase which firstly to be true would require for God not to exist, and secondly you have no way to prove as I doubt you are in a position to destroy everything and wait around for everything to be rebuilt . So while it may sound great you , it doesn’t really say anything actually.

@fromthehorsesmouth3790

Ай бұрын

Could historical enquiry get back to a Christian orthodox position? There is reason to believe it could, leaning on the extra-biblical Christian writers. However, how experimentally, which is inherently rooted in experimental disciplines is the sole arbiter of how something is declared true needs some explaining. For instance if we lost all historical information would we be able to rediscover a historical event? If no, is historical study inherently false? I don't believe so, but I am briefly aware of the post-modernist school which from what I hear believes it is. Christians are unlikely, believing that truth is real, to be post-modernist in this manner. This is a proposition that is aligned with scientific enquiry about the world and religious belief. those within each group or both as it may be, believe that truth is a real thing. However, No one is claiming that religious truth is the same sort of truth as that which is discovered through the material sciences. I, personally, would ascribe religious truth as being in its core essence historical, Which I have already stated my belief that it is not open to repeatable studies. For instance a historical aspect of a religious belief is the crucifixion of Jesus. There are other types of truth claims within the scriptures such as ethical or metaphysical truths. To extend this point, a religious person may be claiming that without an undergirding logic to the universe which the natural laws are established on, and some explanation of how intelligible laws came about, experimentally makes no sense, hence why the scientific originators were in christian Europe. They expected rational laws in the universe, because they believed in a rational law giver. I hope this helps.

@dbje5918

Ай бұрын

​@@eptheorem4681I know exactly what it achieves, the truth, you think the bible is the same now as it always was? No, it took hundreds of years and many men to get to this point, the bible today is that 1 mans writing, religion is man made, the sooner men realise that the happier and safer the world will be .

@eptheorem4681

Ай бұрын

I would be very interested in finding what your reasoning process was when you reached that conclusion. And yes I believe that the bible is the same even though it hasn't always existed in the current format, even though I said Christianity and not the bible. but that is not the point. My point was that the observable reality seems to support more the opposite of this statement. More than that my main point was that it doesn't work as a statement of truth as it is not demonstrable and it relies on a premise to be true while at the same time trying to prove that the premise is true. So the only merit it has on its own is to show what someone believes rather than why they believe it. And I think you proved just that with your statement.

@fromthehorsesmouth3790

Ай бұрын

@@eptheorem4681 so when I say orthodox position I am considering more to the point the gospel, as in the deity of Jesus, his death and the resurrection. Certainly the thinking of the last 2000 years has had an impact on the faith. How much, I could not currently give you a good answer. I would encourage you to consult the work of various scholars. To start with a few good examples; N.T wright, The question of God and Christian origins. provides an introduction to the contemporary world, the believes of the individual writers, brief overviews of what the books in the N.T argue for, and overview of how greek employed by the authors were used in the contemporary culture and Septuagint. Mike Licona: The Resurrection: a new historiographical approach. Garry Habbermas - The resurrection: Evidences. Provides historical evidence for the resurrection. Those authors would serve you much better than I can in a KZread comment. If you were responding to the comment between yours and mine, I apologise.

The lack of self-awareness in this video is really something.

@sh0k0nes

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely🤦🏾

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

It seems to me that he knows exactly what he's doing. Apologists are tricky beasts. There's a chance I could be wrong - those folks who harbour religious belief are often blind to the fact that such a thing is neither necessary nor justified. A far cry from epistemology, faith in your fellow man, etc.

@banmancan1894

3 ай бұрын

How so? Glen defends his worldview in various videos and pieces of literature. In other words, it sounds like he knows he has a worldview that must be able to appeal to means of reason and evidence. There are atheists out there (typically those familiar with philosophical concepts beyond a few undergrad courses) who absolutely realize that every worldview (including their own) needs to be defended/supported. However, many merely attempt to poke holes in everyone else' worldviews, unfortunately uncritically so. These people when questioned throw their hands in the air and say "I don't have any beliefs." I find this kind of thinking offers a greater lack of self-awareness. 🤷‍♂

@edwardnygma5549

3 ай бұрын

Ricky Gervais is wrong. Firstly, he offered whats called a 'false analogy' in Logic. His reasoning is infferred, not deductive. *We are all bank robbers, i've just robbed one more bank than you* ' is akin to his argument. Ricky mistakes it to be relative, when it is binary. Secondly, he brushes past the fact that it is not a spectrum, it is binary in the mathematical sense. 1 God compared to 0 Gods is a signficant ontological difference. Thirdly, he misrepresents/misinterprets the view of believers of God, creating and attacking a strawman. The tv host was a poor proponent for theism, appealing to emotion. Nevertheless Ricky was also fallacious. Guys please dont take actors/comedians seriously (if you do, that is. Im not saying/implying you do). I only look to academics for serious rational inquiry. God = transcendent cause of universe/life, prime mover etc Religion = spiritual pathway to God God and religion are distinct, and to conflate the two is a 'category mistake'. Proving a lack of consensus amongst religions only proves that, it does not negate the existence of God/prime mover. To provide a visual example, imagine a spider map. God at the centre is the destination. The lines (religions) = pathways/roads to God. Some lines/roads may be contradictory, and this may negate their validity. However this does nothing to negate/affect the central destination as its independent. God is one entity (there are not many monotheistic Gods as people make it out to be - that language isnt precise), but everyone has their own interpretation which admittedly is a great cause of disorder and confusion. I can concede with the atheists here. Nevertheless, it does nothing to negate God's existence as the prime mover since it is independent. This lack of understanding mistakenly pits religions against each other without acknowledging interpretation of the same entity as a significant factor, and also conflates God with religion (pathway to God). Interpretation is a greatly unacknowledged factor. For example there are denominations within even the same religion just to demonstrate the disorder interpreation creates amongst theism. The one clear concensus among theists is God exists, which is the only relevant scope for Rickys dialogue, Furthermore, even if polytheism were the case, this visual depiction would still apply, with each respective God still centered as the central 'grouped' figure on the map. Although my interpretation of God is monotheistic, I pre-empted a possible objection so I briefly addressed that. Hope this explanation can help you see whats wrong with Rickys logic. I'm not making a case for theism vs atheism (thats a different matter entirely), I'm simply unpicking Rickys faulty logic.

@edwardnygma5549

3 ай бұрын

@@banmancan1894 This has also been my experience, definitely agree.

As a Jewish man myself I must say - Ricky is completely on point here!

The problem with your analogy with the bachelor and the billions of women is that we can prove that all those billions of women exist. It might take a really long time but I could still theoretically meet and interact with a lot of those women. I could simply go outside my house and see them walking around. With the gods conversation, nobody can prove even the existence of just one. The moment someone has indisputable proof that gods exist then we can finally accept your analogy.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rp An absurd simplification. That's not how proof works. Replace "God" in your statement with literally anything else and see how silly it really is.

@icedanilzation

2 ай бұрын

@@user-ro9lu7uo1jbillions of teacups, billions of flowers, billions of cars, billions of unicorns.. oh, we have struck a problem.

If it's not worth serious discussion.......why seriously discuss it?

Interesting slight of hand but let me demystify the points made. Ricky was not calling Stephen an atheist, but an Agnostic (as we all are technically - as no-one can prove or disprove a deity) Analogies 1. To properly represent atheism in the marriage analogy you should say “you don’t believe in marrying anyone other than Emma, I simply don’t believe in marrying anyone at all”. What he isn’t saying is “you are not married” 2. Being an atheist is not comparable to being an anarchist. If the anarchist “has a definite political philosophy” then it is not analogous to an atheist, as atheism is not a belief system. The statement is closer to “you don’t believe in any political philosophy other than your own. I simply don’t believe in yours either”. Atheism makes no claims to being its own religion. 3. Theory of knowledge - more slight of hand. An atheist doesn’t “know” other theories/religions are incorrect (they’re Agnostic, remember!) they simply don’t 'believe' the assertion that they are correct. No atheist would say “we don’t need a theory on how the universe came into existence” because if they did, they would rightfully “be laughed out of the room”. They simply don’t believe religious theories provide the answer and most believe science holds the key. Atheists do not argue the merits of many gods versus one. They don’t believe in many gods or one god. The statement is simply asking “if you are technically Agnostic as we all are, why are you arguing that it's more plausible to believe in the existence of one god as opposed to many?” Confused by what point is being made about doubt/belief. Atheists don’t particularly prioritise doubt but they do say, show me the proof of this extraordinary claim or I will doubt it to be true. Much as science progresses on the basis of doubt (and therefore empirical testing) until shown to be robust. Not believing in a deity does not extend to not appreciating nature, beauty, love, etc. Quite the opposite, it drives the desire to understand it through scientific discoveries such as evolution, etc. I can’t be bothered to unpick the 5 minute sermon at the end, but I’m surprised by the interpretation that Christianity was the first form of Atheism(!?) I would have thought the advancement of science had played a larger part. In the 'institution of marriage' analogy you could meet Jesus, or you could meet science. Calling back to the RIcky Gervais interview, I believe I know which one will still be around in another 2000 years.

@cora.ann.s

2 ай бұрын

THIS! 🙏🏼

@magnuss9225

2 ай бұрын

Thank you good sir for explaining it perfectly.

@archieeast3021

Ай бұрын

Just Perfect.

Isn't he just making the point that the chances that you have chosen the correct religious ideology extremely unlikely given that there are so many?

@rontimus

3 ай бұрын

But when you become "atheist" you are actually just following a trendline set by Christianity. It never occurs to atheists that they could believe in other gods. Therefore, they are truly owned by Christianity. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X2mG2tlmqpnSfJM.html

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

I don't think he's saying that, no. When he develops his thought further he often gets to the point of saying things like: *I doubt your God for the same reasons you doubt Zeus*. But even for that point to land, he needs to think A) there's sufficient similarities between the God of the Bible and Zeus, and B) that he can simply "doubt all the way" and never have to declare the grounds of his judgements (IOW his beliefs)

@esztereszter9137

2 ай бұрын

Yes, he talked about it in different interview that what is the chance that you choose the real god? There is 3 major religion and with your birthplace it's already have one, so bc of this you already doomed. Something like this.e​@@SpeakLifeMedia

@antonnilsson3793

2 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia You are really impressive in the arts of mental gymnastics, because he never even mention Zeus he could be talking about any of the modern gods including Allah or the jewish god so you have no basis for your rebuttal and your nervousness really shows when saying that his argument is not worthy of serious consideration really showing how hard you are trying to sell the BS.

@hungrybamba

2 ай бұрын

You're completely taking his words out of context - plus he never mentions Zeus even in the full interview or said anything the way you quote it.....@@SpeakLifeMedia

5 minutes in and I can tell you don’t old a candle to Ricky Gervais when it comes to salient thought.

I think a lot of the comments are very kind. This is very stupid. All of the outsiders don't deny the existence of these actual things. A bachelor doesn't think marriage doesn't exist.

well, that was a waste of 20 minutes. The amount of hand holding necessary for someone to go along with those mental gymnastics is just proof of what type of person it takes to remain a believer in the 21st century. Religious people's desire to be led and controlled is something I will never understand.

@mrsmellyboy1

2 ай бұрын

I agree. You are proving something you can't prove but it was created this idea of creator that we don't know nothing about. Just live your life and leave the world a better place.

I don't get your analogies. Philosophy, marriage, politics are proofable things. But none of our believes can be proven. Do gods / goddesses exist? Who knows? You compare things based on facts to things (gods) based on believes...

@AaronMonger-ms1wu

2 ай бұрын

You shouldn’t be saying we don’t know according to Ricky kzread.infocCjPm4cXoxs?si=DBaty4w5KgtZVX4v

@Moneygoon999

2 ай бұрын

@@AaronMonger-ms1wu you don't understand what he says in the video then.

"This theory isn't worthy of serious examination!" Proceeds to make 30 minute video examining theory.

@cpjds1

Ай бұрын

20 minutes but hyperbole always wins that dopamine hit :)

Even as a child it was obvious to me, that we can´t know the answers to every possible question. For example: how did everything start? I don´t know. Maybe the idea of a "big bang" is wrong. But would be the answer that God created everything be an answer at all? No. Where did this God come from. Who created him? Explaining everything by magic is no explanation at all. It´s ok not to know every answer to every possible question. To think we know every answer is extremely arrogant.

@AaronMonger-ms1wu

2 ай бұрын

Ricky doesn’t think your opinion even matters kzread.infocCjPm4cXoxs?si=DBaty4w5KgtZVX4v

Could you link the sources that you use in the description?

Gervais's argument makes perfect sence. As Richard Dawkins said, the only reason why you believe in the god you believe in is because of where you are born and grew up. Religion (Christianity and Islam in perticular) has brought way more harm than good.

@rossd6809

3 ай бұрын

Including being raised as an atheist? There are millions of Chinese and Iranians who have become atheists or theists.

@funkyskypilot

3 ай бұрын

Imagine 1000 Elvis impersonators. You dismiss all of them as not the real Elvis. Good for you. If you then say that Elvis never existed and you just believe in one less Elvis, then you’re an idiot.

@dilbertfish

3 ай бұрын

@apara93 Yes, because you are locked into someone else's choice, and don't have the free will to do anything about it. Clearly.

@michaelhart1072

3 ай бұрын

That’s a completely different argument. Just be honest and admit Gervais’ argument is weak. Most atheists admit that

@joferg12

3 ай бұрын

Do you live in a country like China? Enjoying all the many blessings of country without religion? Also, have you looked at the List of Christians in science and technology in Wikipedia? What percent of wars were the result of religion? Has any religion caused suffering anything close to the scale of atheists like Stalin or Mao Zedong?

I didn't find the analogies convincing. For example, being married is a legal status if I am married I am not single to other women because I am not married to them. I am still married. I am not enough of a philosopher to say more, but I think a better analogy is that some dollar bills are counterfeit, which doesn't mean some are not genuine. Gervais would of course retort he doesn't find the God I believe in convincing either. Then you can move to a discussion about the nature of the One true God which people like Gervais do not have an accurate concept of

@ephs145

3 ай бұрын

yes very good analogy (the counterfeit dollar bills)

@christophekeating21

3 ай бұрын

That's the whole point. You're not single relative to the women you aren't married to, because single isn't a relative term, it means not married (at all.) Atheist isn't a relative term, it means without a god (at all.)

@kennorthunder2428

3 ай бұрын

@@christophekeating21 The point of Glen's analogy was the millions of women in the world "identified" him as single. These other women are analogous to athiests who take up this falacious argument. The REALITY is that Glen was married. There's also the argument that you have have thousands of pale immitations and one origional. The only reason all these other could say the same thing of each other is that they're ignoring some important contextuals. (see above)

@sh0k0nes

3 ай бұрын

But let me guess…u have the accurate concept of. Amirite?

@kennorthunder2428

3 ай бұрын

@sh0k0nes Try using the logic/truth tool rather than the sneer tool.

After this bloke got educated by Bart Ehrman about morality and Christianity, very embarrassing.

First segment is total false-equivalency comparison. Section 2: saying "God" is not a supernatural force? Section 3: I can't even get there. The only thing this video has come close to making me believe is that Christianity is more of a cult than I ever considered. At least it is with this fellow's line of reasoning, justification, and argument.

The complete and utter lack of self awareness in this video is terrifying.

Listening to this video and reading through the comments it strikes me that there is very little understanding of what atheism actually means, so here are a few pointers to help. 1. An atheist doesn’t believe in a deity (that bit most people know) 2. An atheist doesn’t say “there is no god” (an atheist cannot know this any more than a person of religion can know a god exists - please note the use of the word “know” and not “believe”. Anyone who claims to ‘know’ on either side of the argument are either lying or misunderstanding what it is to ‘know’ something) 3. Atheism does not attempt to answer any questions about existence because that is not its purpose. (Atheists will however generally see science as the process through which they can answer all the big questions eventually, but this would be a personal perspective, not a function of atheism). 4. Most atheists hate the term ‘atheist’ because they see it as unnecessarily tedious to be defined by the denial of something they don’t believe in. (They don’t describe themselves as aSantaClausist or aToothfairyist simply because they don’t believe in these, either). 5. Atheists don’t hate God. How can you hate something you don’t believe exists? 6. Atheists generally don’t have a problem with other people believing in a god. They respect the rights of people to believe what they like, just as they wish to be respected for not believing. (Atheists generally only have a problem with people who try to impose their views on others through manipulation, coercion, etc.). 7. For this reason, atheists do often have a strong dislike of religious institutions that seek to coerce and manipulate people for money, power, extreme ideology and control. I’m sure many theists feel the same way. 8. Atheists can be spiritual. Atheism is only the belief there is no god, it does not prevent them from feeling connections to loved ones who have passed, etc. This is a natural part of the human experience. 9. Atheists are just as positive and optimistic as everyone else. They have a love of nature, beauty, art, etc. as much as anyone else. If anything, this appreciation is intensified by the belief of experiencing it for only a short while. You can be in awe at the wonder of the world around you without requiring it to be produced by a deity. 10. Atheists are a mix of good and bad people just as much as religious people. They are not less moral simply because they don’t believe in God and therefore haven’t been told the difference between good and evil. If you believe this, then by inference this would suggest religious people would not know good from evil without a god to tell them, which seems incredibly patronising. Hope that was helpful. We should all strive for less hate, more tolerance, less manipulation, more truth, less denial, more understanding, less superstition, more knowledge!

@seantaylor4095

2 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rp Not because I don't know personally, but because for something to be factually true requires indisputable, evidence based proof and if that existed we can be pretty sure we'd know about it. Until such a time as that happens (I 'believe' it never will) I think it's safe to say no-one has. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not simply claims of balance of probability or even being possible. But don't confuse this with me saying people can't find their own 'inner' god. I'm not challenging anyone's sense of a god talking to them personally, but to me that talks to belief and faith, not fact or knowledge. Belief and faith are personal and each individual is entitled to their own, however facts are shared by everybody and nobody can lay claim to them without setting a high bar of evidence.

@seantaylor4095

2 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rp Yes, I appreciate the calm and mature conversation, as it can so often descend into hysteria and insults. All I would say is that to me, what you are describing is faith (and there's nothing wrong with having faith), but not fact. The very fact there are multiple religions around the world means that at least all but one have to be wrong. Also, if god could arbitrarily dip in and out of different peoples lives you would have to question the choices he makes in that regard, given what is happening in the world today. However I won't go down that rabbit hole.... Centuries ago most people, almost without exception, believed the sun orbited the earth. This seemed a very plausible explanation at the time but consensus didn't make it 'fact' even when no-one could or wished to provide an alternative view. Everybody 'believed' it to be true. But that is why evidence based proof is so important, because otherwise we can be influenced by the time and place into which we are born. True facts transcend time and place. No educated 'first world' person nowadays would think the sun orbited the earth, but the religions of the day and even non-religious people were convinced of it. As humans it can be very hard for us to step outside of ourselves and view ourselves as being part of the Darwinian evolutionary process. Science doesn't have all the answers, but the more answers it provides, the more religion retreats into explaining the remaining gaps in our knowledge. History tells us that things religion currently claims to explain will be increasingly explained by science in the future, but that this knowledge is unlikely to ever be fully completed and therefore religion will always find some remaining gaps to fill. This constant 'shape shifting' doesn't convince me that religion 'has got it right this time' as it's too easy to lay claim to everything that is currently not understood. Anthropology is a fascinating subject area for anyone with an open mind and a desire to learn more about why cultures and religious belief are so important to us as a species and to that extent provides a (social) scientific explanation as to why religions exist. However the existence of religion and desire for a god(s), doesn't make it 'fact'.

I think that the Deut 32 worldview - Micheal Heiser, is a worthwhile tool for understanding how Christians thought about other gods.

Missing the point entirely. Very stupid and irrelevant analogies. Impressive really.

Great post. God bless your ministry.

I remember Rogan calling it a home run with Dawkins nodding next to him... When I listened to an interview with Ben Watkins (an atheist, Real Atheology) he picked it as an example of a 'horrible' and 'embarrassing' argument...

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

In no way is it an argument. Gervais was advancing it as a way to clarify his lack of belief vis-a-vis Colbert's belief as an observant Catholic. There is nothing in the contents of his comment to suggest even the vaguest outline of an "argument." Everything Glen advances in this video is based on an embarrassingly flawed premise, including every one of the analogies he makes.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

@user-ro9lu7uo1j obfuscates. You are correct, Rogan did call it a home run, and he was referring to Dawkins's use of the "You Deny One Less God" tripe in his book, "The God Delusion", which itself is dedicated to supporting the proposition that God is not a reality but a delusion. One can assume that Dawkins is offering 'arguments' in support of his thesis. Merely Googleing "what is an argument" offers, 2. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. And all one needs do is listen to Gervais with Colbert to hear Gervais offer "You Deny One Less God" as a response to Colbert's asking Gervais, "Do you want to debate the existence of God." and Gervais responding, "Sure." Michael Shermer in his presentation at the Oxford Union (which says of itself, "The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford.") utilizes this same vacuous argument. @user-ro9lu7uo1j embarrassingly offers his partisan, *"Everything Glen advances in this video is based on an embarrassingly flawed premise, including every one of the analogies he makes."* apparently overlooking what I've already pointed out to him (but of course, he is a propagandist) that atheist philosopher Michael Ruse declares against his own team, "Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." One is welcome to speculate which of Dawkins's arguments Ruse finds most embarrassingly offered in support of atheism. I'd suggest that it is unlikely that any of Dawkins's arguments are more embarrassing to Ruse than what Rogan declares a home run.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the Ben Watkins reference. I just searched it up. It is great. ~ 3;00 in "Atheist philosopher cringes over New Atheism (with Ben Watkins)"

@veridicusmaximus6010

Ай бұрын

@@samdg1234 This is utter BS lies. This takes Ricky's point way out of context. This was not an argument against God's existence - it's an argument against why one should not/does not believe in God's existence. Ricky even prefaced it with the idea of him being an agnostic atheist and then went on to put his point within a hypothetical statement by a theist (Colbert). Ricky said - "you say God exists and I say can you prove it and you say no and I say then I don't believe you." Ricky then went on to then show why Colbert and thus theists (particularly monotheists) do the exact same thing with regard to all the other gods. He is trying to show to you and every other theist why atheists don't believe in any gods - there is not sufficient evidence for them to believe in any of them - the difference is that Colbert and others despite no proof choose to believe but really don't KNOW - which gets back to the point of him bringing up agnostic positions on both sides. Ricky just goes one god further. He is trying to show Colbert why he does not believe in his God by showing Colbert why he does not believe in all the other gods. They never really got to any argument against God's existence as this was a prefatory point. How you and this content creator utterly distorted this and then went on a long windy strawman is so typical of you guys. Talk about obfuscation.

@samdg1234

Ай бұрын

@@veridicusmaximus6010 You say, 1) *"This was not an argument against God's existence"* and then 2) *"it's an argument against why one should not/does not believe in God's existence."* I see no significant difference between the two. If in the sense 1) there is no good argument for God existing, then presumably 2) I won't believe in him. Did you listen to the actual sit down of Gervais on Colberts show. Near the beginning, the conversation goes, Colbert stating, "I know that you're an atheist, correct?" Then Gervais answering, "Yeah." Followed by Colbert asking Gervais, Do you want to debate the existence of God? And then Gervais answering, “Sure.” From that point on I think it is reasonable to assume that what is said is in the service of argument by one side for the existence of God and by the other in the service of arguing for the non-existence of God. Gervais at the beginning rightly says that there are two choices. Anyway the whole "one less God" response begs the question.

Here's one simple analogy for you: Hinduism believes in one being of multiple oneness (Brahman) represented by multiple gods/goddesses. New Age Spirituality believes we ourselves are Gods. Buddhism believes in no God, but aspire to be as spiritual enlightened as Buddha. Islam/Muslims believe in one God named Allah as the creator of the universe and the source of all good and evil. Christianity believes in one eternal God who is the creator of all that is. Do you believe in ALL of these religions, or only the last one? Which PROOF validates your religion and invalidates all others? THAT is what Ricky Gervais was talking about, he doesn't believe in a God or Gods until there's IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

@SpeakLifeMedia

2 ай бұрын

Right, but keep going... he looks for proof *on the basis of* certain beliefs. You need to have a certain metaphysic and epistemology if you're going to declare something to be lacking in proof. But Ricky merely assumes his metaphysical and epistemological beliefs, all the while thinking he's a neutral observer. But no, he's taking a position himself. He's not a pure sceptic. He's like the anarchist saying that he "only doubts one more political ideology than the monarchist". On the positive side it alerts us to the fact that everyone doubts stuff. On the negative side, Ricky is blind to the the beliefs that he holds.

@wettuga2762

2 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Don't nitpick parts of his speech and make it the center of your counter-argument. I don't care about metaphysic, epistemology, or any of those fancy words that have no tangible meaning. As a person that believes in FACTS, that's what science provides, facts that can be proven again and again, with always the same outcome. That's the main point I got from his arguments: if one day the existence of God can be proven without a doubt with tangible proofs, THEN he will believe in a God, as will I. Until then, he and I (and YOU) can't confirm or deny there is a God.

I just find it hilarious that Joe Rogan is quoting Ricky Gervais to Richard Dawkins who is clearly quoting Richard Dawkins. The one God less quote is from The God Delusion and Richards famous 'What if you're wrong' reaction. I prefer Richards original version because he also points out the inevitable bias of you believing in the current God of your own culture as apposed to that of another. 'What if I'm wrong? What if you're wrong about Zeus, Wotan and the great Ju Ju under the sea.'

Great video I think its important to point out the distinction between what Ricky means by "believe" and what a Christian might mean. Ricky is saying he doesn't believe that any of these gods or that God exists. When the Greeks and Romans converted, they didn't deny the existence of higher beings, principalities or powers (gods), but they looked higher. I think as a Christian, its perfectly fine to say that they all exist, but my trust/belief is with the one true God.

@ephs145

3 ай бұрын

well yes. Ricky doesn't believe in one less god than the christian. So what? Says nothing about the truth of the God claim.

@banmancan1894

3 ай бұрын

Certainly One of the most important points in the discussion of theism and Christianity (addressed in other videos and literature Glen has available), but it is not relevant in the context of the discussion of Gervais' claim. It almost appears as if your comment presumed that that was the main point of the conversation and the other commenter missed the point.

@ephs145

3 ай бұрын

you could say that christianity is the one true religion as opposed to all the other cults. When it first burst onto the scene the Roman authorities tolerated it (cos they regarded it like all other cults) so long as it was practiced as a private (non political) cult whilst at the same time acknowledging Rome as the one true religion. When the early chritians failed to do this Rome tried to put a stop to it.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Oh, boy! I don't envy anybody who has to do the work of proving the existence of countless gods. If that were the case, then one would be inclined to think the universe would insist on giving us evidence that even one of them exists, but you'd be very wrong.

@petemaguire8677

3 ай бұрын

@@user-ro9lu7uo1j do you exist? Prove it

Maybe being spiritually is the key, go in woods listen to the water running over rocks in a creek or river, listen to the birds? Then leaning into someone else's dogma? You put brick motor up and then put someone incharge and the next thing that happens they start preaching their own. It just human nature to be in control. - 99% what your your going believe is from your family origins beliefs. If your born into buddhist family you'll probably be a buddhist - also it is old adage everyone else is wrong and were right? ( Even the same denominations can't even agree on the same consensus AE: Catholicism.

12:53 not really. believing in it or not doesnt change the outcome. Thats the point. Whether i believe i can think or not doesnt change that i do. You also dont have to believe in gravity for it to exist or present itself. There are assumptions made, but those are different and not set in stone.

I just find it intresting that people say it’s the book and the holy bible that is true, but without human intervention, like Paper, ink, printing press and language the bible wouldn’t exist, and without them technology it be hard to spread the word of god. So I find it interesting as technology and knowledge got better the higher thought process of what god is.

What do you think about his other argument he made to Colbert about burning all the religious books and science books?

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

We've already run the experiment... we didn't have any of either kinds of books, and then out of a culture that took the Bible seriously emerged the modern scientific method. And it emerged nowhere else. (I'm not talking about geometry or astronomy, I'm talking about the kind of experimental method RG recognises as science). As Alfred North Whitehead said, modern science emerged from a a Christian context because of widespread “faith in the possibility of science ... derivative from medieval theology.” It was biblical views of God, creation, humanity, fallenness, etc, that were at the root of modern science. Imagine burning all the books and trying to establish confidence in Homo sapiens' ability to fathom the mysteries of the cosmos without any special views of the status of Homo sapiens. Would science emerge again from an atheist worldview? I'm not so confident.

@videocurcuits

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia this is just ahistorical & Whitehead was basing those comments on a very outdated view of the history of science. You could make an argument that the scientific method was derivative from medieval theology (especially German medieval theology like Nicholas of Cusa etc but those traditions were also heavily influenced by older eastern traditions / metaphysics such as Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism etc. Later the medieval Islamic world obviously also produced equally rigorous scientific work as the renaissance west. To claim modern science as uniquely a product of monotheistic or Christian religion is highly dubious. If your going to make that argument you would have to claim atheism as a product of medieval christian theology. Now of to my alter to sacrifice a goat to Baal, baahahaha HA ha !

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

Yes atheism, in the form we encounter it in the west is-very obviously I'd say-derivative of Latin Christendom (especially of a Protestant variety). I don't see that as remotely contentious.

@videocurcuits

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia only partially because as I said allot of the medieval christian theology that it emerged from was deeply influenced by eastern traditions and wholesale imported many theological arguments and ideas. Ancient African Geomantic traditions for example (of which the I Ching is a variant) are one of the main influences on Leibniz logic as it involves a series of symbols performing binary operations in feedback to produce arbitrary patterns. Of course his work is foundational to modern computing but this earlier tradition using the same idea must be acknowledged as he did in his writing. Atheism like the scientific method/s (see the philosophy of science for arguments around this) are common sense methodologies based on adopting the most causally powerful model to seek knowledge and wisdom. The abrahamic religions are just one stream in a river delta of different paths that lead us here.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia I can't make sense of your response, *"We've already run the experiment... we didn't have any of either kinds of books, and then out of a culture that took the Bible seriously ..."* I think that the opening post is referring to this from Gervais, "Well, yeah, but science is constantly proved over time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, and any holy book and any other fiction, and destroyed it, okay. In 1,000 years' time, that wouldn't come back just as it was." Colbert lamely responds, "That's good. That is really good." But then, none of us always have the best of response to every challenge. Of course, no one ever claimed that we'd be able to recreate such. It is such a terrible red herring. Christians refer to both general revelation and special revelation. In fact, you can even see Gervais's point illustrated in the bible. A couple of instances that come to mind are: Romans 1:28 (NIV) says, "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." or, in 2 Kings 22, Hilkiah Finds the Book of the Law and when it's contents are communicated to the king, the king tore his cloths as an expression of remorse that he had not been living according to the instruction of God, while he hadn't had the instruction of God. It is too bad that Gervais's piffle here was responded to inadequately. Can any history of *all* traces of it have been removed ever be re-discovered? I've regrettably lost or discarded many letters I've received over the course of a lifetime and, unfortunately, can't recover that content.

I tuned out after your first failed analogy. An unmarried man is a bachelor to 4 billion women. A married man is a bachelor to ZERO women. He is, by definition, not a bachelor.

@Bhefyuplaborapsto

3 ай бұрын

You completely missed the point. It's gervais' argument that is a total failure. An atheist is one who rejects any kind of deity. A person who believes in a god, no matter how many or which one specifically, is no longer an atheist. With the first analogy Glen doesn't literally mean that a man married to a woman is a bachelor to the others, he just shows the absurdity of Gervais' argument (well, unless it's just a joke).

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

exactly.

@kamenrider16984

3 ай бұрын

@@Bhefyuplaborapsto Women exist. God's don't. Tell us where the gods are first before we start making analogies.

@bvanhise

3 ай бұрын

@@Bhefyuplaborapsto I see what you're saying. I always felt the argument was more "Neither of us believe in all 3,000 gods. I just believe in one less." I'd say a theist of one god could be a non-believer in other gods. We may not call him an "atheist" but still a non-believer (in those other gods) regardless.

@Bhefyuplaborapsto

3 ай бұрын

@@kamenrider16984 The analogy doesn't want to prove the existence of God(s). It's about the validity of belief.

The "I just go one further" line is originally from Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great. It doesn't originate with Gervais. Glenn is right to point out that monotheists were the first atheists. The problem with Glenn's critique of "I just go one further" line is that most Christians talk about and relate to God is as if God is a limited being, a powerful, "super-being" who travels with us along life's journey who we can call upon to help us out if we get into trouble. Glenn is being disingenuous if he thinks the fault lies with Gervais. The fault lies with articulate Christians--like Glenn--who pretend that Christians aren't the ones doing the bad job of articulating their beliefs. Glenn is being an attack dog. He could use a measure of humility. Gervais has good reasons for articulating the position that he does. Glenn would be a much better conversation partner if he started from the position that Christians have failed, not from the position that atheists are conceptually incoherent.

i have often found that christians are very uncomfortable with the "i don't knows" of life. "what happens after i die? i don't know and i'm scared. but if i believe in god, it makes me feel better about having something to look forward to." they often need something to fill the gaps in their knowledge and understanding because it's too uncomfortable to be comfortable with the unknown. i don't know what happens after i die. i don't know how the universe formed. i don't know if there is extra-terrestrial life. i don't know if i'll get cancer. i don't know if my family member will survive their hospital stay. i don't know if i'll get hit by a bus when i walk outside today. i just don't know so many things. and i'm totally ok with that.

@drooskie9525

2 ай бұрын

That's more of a product of the modern western mind. if you go more east (orthodox christianity), they are more okay with the "i dont know's". they are pretty big on apophatic theology (knowledge of God obtained through negation). meaning, God is so beyond us we can only say what he is not.

Excellent commentary. Thank you. Two other examples come to mind. 1) Math - What is the result of 5x5? I believe the right answer is 25 and all other results are wrong. Someone could say they don't think there is a correct answer. They say they only believe there is one more wrong answer than I believe. 2) Teetotalers - I only drink red wine. Am I a teetotaler because I don't drink any other type of alcoholic drink?

@ThinkAboutIt-xr1le

3 ай бұрын

These are as bad as the content creator's analogies. Do you still believe in the *existence* of other numbers? Do you still believe in the *existence* of white wine? The point Gervais made was that the religious accept the faith statements of their specific religion with a noncritical eye while remaining rightly skeptical of all others. It's a good point because all religions make statements of fact without empirical evidence. None of these analogies present anything remotely similar.

@danielmcdonagh2889

3 ай бұрын

​@@ThinkAboutIt-xr1ledoes Glen sound uncritical to you? Are you sure there is no evidence for Christianity?

@ThinkAboutIt-xr1le

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@danielmcdonagh2889Yes and yes. Absolutely.

@ARonAR

3 ай бұрын

@@danielmcdonagh2889he is confusing proof and evidence.

Gervais is nowhere near as intelligent or as funny as he thinks he is. I used to really enjoy his early material but I find him almost insufferable now. He somehow leveraged himself into the same circles as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on the atheism front, and Seinfeld and Louis CK on the comedy front. He isn't a part of either group anymore, it is clear he isn't of the same caliber in any area. He had every opportunity to act in Hollywood movies but each of them flopped. He does not have the talent he thinks he has, and his arguments against God are juvenile.

Mythology (from the Greek mythos for story-of-the-people, and logos for word or speech, so the spoken story of a people) is the study and interpretation of often sacred tales or fables of a culture known as myths or the collection of such stories which deal with various aspects of the human condition: good and evi Way before Christianity, isnt all religion mythology in that case. What about finding no human bones from the dinosaur era ? We just came alive after that ?

@chrislevi9612

Ай бұрын

You are just a lunatic

Get real and accept everyone’s views

Haha facts. I mean Gervais is a career comedian. I don’t know why anyone should take him seriously, more serious than career scientists.

Gervais was stating his lack of belief in a relatable way, he was not specifically attacking or attempting to disprove the existence of the Christian god with his zinger. It was a comparison meant to clarify his lack of belief in the supernatural, not a polished argument in and of itself. It was a clever bit, and unlike Colbert's middling comeback, is constructed on a foundation of logic rather than sheer mythology. I'm not on board with your wife analogy, because it misses the point entirely. A bachelor is by no means as rare or mystifying to the populace as an atheist, and it's difficult to imagine anybody describing himself as a committed spouse to one lucky lady and a bachelor to other four billion odd women on Earth. Similarly, the anarchist analogy also misses the point. Putting aside the fact that anarchism is a multifaceted political theory which has as many subdivisions as, well, Christianity, let's agree for the sake of argument that it can be defined as a mere rejection of all other political theories. In that case, what's wrong with what the anarchist says in your analogy? He has a position, yes, but not a belief. There is no organized political system to which he hews. His position may not seem wise or utilitarian, and it may well be naive, but it isn't laughable on its face. Your epistemological analogy works best, but it again compares apples to oranges. Having a theory of knowledge is essential to being able to confidently express cogent ideas, but theology is a far cry from knowledge. A wholesale rejection of epistemology, if such a thing is even possible (because if there's an honest corollary to atheism in the philosophical realm, I have yet to see it in action) demands some kind of replacement, but a rejection of theology does not. Since we live in a world which does not require supernatural explanations for what appear to be entirely natural phenomena, one need not advance anything other than science as a replacement for god.

Thats bachelor comparison is just nonsense. Very bad chosen. Not valid and not comparable to the Gods argument.

At one point of time there were these Christian Tv evvangelists who spoke in tongues (Gibbersih mostly) and convinced the masses that they are capable of providing relief to the people who are suffering, thank GOd we had television and tapes of their acts to prove all the slight of hand that was the corner stone of the "bussiness of faith". Now a days unfotunately the business of "bussiness of faith" has been taken up by these KZread evangelists, selling (Gibberish) 3-2-1 courses. Athiesm is simply one thing and one thing only, not being convinced by your Theistic propostions, you can certainly utter gibbersih and claim somehow your GOd is "the GOd" and your claim is different but that doesnt mean that you are right. Even if Atheism is wrong that doesnt prove your God, I guess understanding such a basic concept is difficult to these religious types.

if you were married then you wouldn't be a bachelor.

This reaction is a classic example of a blind person who loves to be blind. And I don't mean Mr. Gervais.

You got all the gods wrong....he talk about it in other interviews, Shiva was one(maybe wrong name, dont know this stuff, just seen a video, ages ago😂)and the others before copy Jesus came around.

Holy shit.. the second analogy doesn't work either... anarchy is a political system... I quit... nothing to gain here...

Are you really ignoring your own interview with the great Tom Holland?

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

That was the whole subtext of the final point: there's one history that makes sense of RG's question: the "Christian revolution"

@rontimus

3 ай бұрын

@ifeMedia Although I do indeed apologize for not watching the end before commenting, my initial point though does remain standing, which is that, according to Tom Holland, it's not JUST that Christianity has "made atheism possible" (which indeed is true), but the truth is more than that. The Christian "Will to Truth" has pushed things to the point where it has made atheism LIKELY, not just possible. It has set up a tendency to atheism, and the point is not just that Gervais is being "more rational" than Christians, but that he actually has little free will at all, and is simply the product of a trendline he has no awareness of. He's actually kind of a pathetic loser, historically speaking. Only one religion tends to create atheists, and that is CHRISTIANITY.

@rontimus

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia The phrase "Jesus is Lord" both hyper-valorized the "will to truth", and simultaneously banished the other gods from the woods and the mountains and the trees, as Tom Holland explains: kzread.info/dash/bejne/X2mG2tlmqpnSfJM.html

Those analogies are not comparable to a belief system and that’s the crucial point. Politics or getting married have nothing to do with faith and according to you (the religious types) religion is about faith which in the overwhelming majority of the cases is not true btw. Most people don’t have faith, they were conditioned and taught to believe and blindly follow a specific religion. That’s why when you’re born in a Muslim country you will almost certainly believe in Allah and if you’re born in a traditional Christian country you will almost certainly be a Christian. If people developed their own belief systems independently the stats would be completely different but that’s clearly not the case. So let’s just stop calling it faith and name it what it really is: Brainwashing kids into believing whatever predominant god you have in the country you happened to be born.

I always found the "You Deny One Less God" critique quite ridiculous because of its category error, but I really loved the examples in this video from marriage / politics / philosophy. A really thorough critique. Great video.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

That is to say, they were absurd by design. Glen knew what he was doing.

apologists are hilarious

I learned a lot from this video. I also learned from the comments. I learned years ago that most people believe in a God that was like their Father. If their father was absent they usually don't believe. Thusly (never used this word until today!) If their father was a stern disciplinarian they think of God as someone doling out punishment. I had a wonderful Christian Father, he never physically punished me, since that was my Mother's job. When I was around 12 he would assign me a passage of the Bible as a punishment, calling them an assignment. He would write questions and leaving room for my answers. After I finished he would go over my answers and any questions I had. He died when I was 16 and thankfully I saved many of these written messages. So it is not hard for me to believe in a loving God, that is ok with my questions and sometimes doubt. This is definitely a simplistic view of faith in God, but it helps me understand why others believe or not believe.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

How absurd. How presumptuous. How naive.

No you and Ricky gervais are not the same in both just having beliefs! Gervais bases his views on scientific evidence! He can go to Dawkins and ask for scientific evidence of evolution, and he would be shown DNA genetic and other sciences including paleontology and paleobiology evidence that can show how they came to that conclusion! This host cannot produce one piece of scientific evidence to prove his point! This isnt a case of just both being on an equal belief feld! The difference between these two is overwhelming!

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

Scientific evidence is excellent for answering scientific questions - just the thing. It's basically irrelevant to answering moral, historical, aesthetic or theological questions. And the person who only accepts /scientific/ evidence for such questions has adopted a view of the world which is self-refuting - because science itself does not and cannot teach you that it is the sole source of wisdom on matters or morality, aesthetics, history or theology.

@sh0k0nes

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMediabut ur ‘answers’ to those questions can be found in many sources, not just the theology u were born geographically and culturally inclined to. Why are u not Muslim?

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

Great, so you see that we need many sources of knowledge (not just scientific) if we're going to consider reality in its fullness? I'm not a Muslim because they deny that Christ died on the cross (one of the most assured events of the ancient world, and the central event of the New Testament) and that he's the Son of God (which is, again, at the heart of the Christian faith and central to the doctrine that God *is* love - something that Muslims can't uphold due to their monadic doctrine of God). But anyway... back to the first point: do you admit that we need more than scientific knowledge in order to truly know reality?

@sh0k0nes

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia to KNOW reality, no. And that's definitely NOT one of the most assured events of the ancient world...

Doubt is parasitic upon faith? @13:35 yes and no. When you *come* to faith, you're seeing something, be it ever so small. That something is evidence, and the result is faith pushing doubt back. But if you stifle your perception of that evidence, THAT is when doubt is parasitic upon faith.

The analogies are not relatable to what Ricky is saying. You laugh people out of the room. Ricky respects others beliefs. He did not say he laughs others out of the room

15:35 Be careful about using this kind of language too often, or the scientologist lawyers will be after you with a cease and desist!

No wonder Homer hates going to church..this guy bores you into agreeing

I just saw the first part where you compared religion to marriage. stopped the video, downvoted and going to move on... but before I do... We are not questioning the relationship with different gods, we are questioning whether god exists in the first place. So in your analogy, when you marry 1 woman, if you start to believe that there are no other women in the world, and I believe that the one you married is also not a woman, then it becomes comparable.

@SpeakLifeMedia

Ай бұрын

The analogy compares the aptness of various labels (bachelor and atheist), it doesn't compare the existence of various entities (wives and gods). The marriage illustration concerns one limited issue: Does it make sense to call a married man /basically/ a bachelor because he has just 'one wife more'? (Answer, no). It's got nothing to do with the /existence/ of wives or of gods.

The 1st analogy doesn't work at all... Stop using analogies to counter arguments... analogies are not arguments...

Ricky all the way

All the gods are real. Christians may refer to them as power and principalities now but that doesn’t make them not real. Something like Mars as the god of war is always a great example, it’s not difficult to summon the god of war but good luck trying to control it after war is started.

@rontimus

3 ай бұрын

Yes, all the gods are there.

@mattdavies3449

3 ай бұрын

"All the gods are real." James 2:19 anyone?

@kamenrider16984

3 ай бұрын

Okay, call them so we could have a chat.

@TheDrb27

3 ай бұрын

@@kamenrider16984 now put that verse with Ephesians 6:12 and reread my comment. Question for you what’s the difference between a daemon and a demon?

@jreynolds4438

3 ай бұрын

Now do the first commandment and pay attention to the words , particularly other gods.

You lost me by the 30th second!

I watch these rebuttals to be fair to the other side of the argument, in case there is a legitimate point that I have not considered. But again it is just word salad. This ONLY appeals to you if you already have decided magic is real. Your analogies are not logically sound and are crafted the way an evangelist would to be as reinforcing as possible to someone who already believes, but don't hold any real weight and are mostly misdirection. Bias is just one of the things that twists your perception. A HUGE BIG GIANT THING. That makes us get stuff wrong all the time. Which is why we have painstakingly worked on ways to minimize it. It's all out there. I implore you to revisit it in great detail, because without taking an in-depth look I don't think you will see all the points your twisting. You can still go and disagree after, keep your god and belief or whatever you like. If you have confidence in your deity then there should be no problem with properly understanding all the ways we fool ourselves, yeh? But properly understand it, not a half-assed cursory flip-through.

@SpeakLifeMedia

2 ай бұрын

Mate. He's a comedian. Making a ridiculous argument. Which other atheists are also embarrassed about. Bias is indeed A Thing.

@dscoronach

2 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Just educate yourself, this isn't even science vs religion or anything like that, it's simply all the ways people fool themselves in everyday life. If you can make a sound argument through that for religion then good for you, but at the moment you are lacking knowledge in critical thinking and sticking your head in the sand isn't the answer.

@SpeakLifeMedia

2 ай бұрын

@@dscoronach You've used a lot of words in order to gesture towards some unnamed unsoundness in my logic. It all sounds very serious. Ironically, though, it's a lot of words and no substantiated critique whatsoever. [Shrugs. Moves on]

@dscoronach

2 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Read your comments mate, theres a ton of unanswered points that you are strangely quiet on.

these "analogys" are so braindead tbh, for instance then one you make about being married to 1 women. yes you are maried to 1 woman and not all of them but the diffrence with the one ricky makes about god is that all the other women on the planet are real and can be proven to be real, no one can deny them. so in this case you are just chosing between them. you can't choose a god when non of them are being proved of being real... same for the politics to be honnest, politics are based on real life communitys and examples in the world, its not something made up. everybody is an atheïst, the ones that believe in a god are just too scared to accept the facts that nature and sience give us. thats it

This video spends so long mocking Ricky's point despite the fact that what he raises is both perfectly accurate as well as being eloquent in its simplicity. Glen provides no evidence or reasoning as to why we should believe his particular chosen god over the 2,999 other choices out there. And as the saying goes any assertion given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So until any reason is actually provided to believe in this made up deity that a tedious book says is real (a book that claims to be gospel although it is really a highly edited version of various religious texts written hundreds of years after the events described and only includes the 'books' its editors were personally fond of) Ricky's position is the far more logical one to take.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

You say, *"This video spends so long mocking Ricky's point despite the fact that what he raises is both perfectly accurate as well as being eloquent in its simplicity."* Was any of the mocking to suggest that the Gervais claim was inaccurate? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong. I suspect you are so wedded to atheism that you are unable to openly criticize any argument offered in its defense. Some atheists (few though they may be) as well as theists see Gervais's simple claim of "You Deny One Less God" as both absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant and question begging. There is no doubt that anyone who thinks that Nicole Brown Simpson died of natural clauses merely thinks that there was one less guilty person responsible for her death than those who think she was murdered. There are nearly 6 billion people who didn't kill her. "You Deny One Less Innocent Person" That is without a doubt, absolutely true. But should it lead us to the conclusion that no one murdered her? Is it a "home run" for the side that says no one murdered her? It appears that Joe Rogan sees the "You Deny One Less God" as just such a home run. "Every Religious Person is an Atheist... | Joe Rogan"

Absolutely insane video it's just a narcissistic load of waffle.You haven't disproven anything coz you can't prove it in the first place 🙄

I was going to write something but I can see other Atheists have been here and done it for me.. Bro I'm going to need that time back because you didn't even make a God Damn point once. There was a lot of dribble.. Pls don't let me catch you on the streets because you have one of them face's...

@SpeakLifeMedia

2 ай бұрын

God bless. You are deeply loved.

@potaka79

2 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia By family and friends yes not by and imaginary omnipotent demanding thing.. Enjoy your delusions.

@Steven_Kiagiadakis

Ай бұрын

Let me clear up the smoke for you, the God we believe in, is NOT demanding. I hope this helps, if you want to ask more I'll answer.

The opening analogies seem to miss most of Gervais' point. By going after the comparative framing, you avoid the core argument: there are many people still following a wide variety of deities, including Hinduism's Vishnu for example. These include creation stories. The thought experiment's surface level is to say 'haha, look how close to atheism we both are', but the reason it has impact is the incompatibility of thousands of lived experiences conflicting one another. Who has picked the 'correct' creator? I think Gervais is a tedious bore, but this video sought to logically undermine his rhetoric without getting into the meat of the topic.

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

Perhaps you missed the point of the analogies. They uncover the ways Gervais's position is a position and not just a pure scepticism. It's fine to point out that different worldviews are incompatible (Christians do this all the time). What's foolish is considering yourself to be above criticism while criticising every other position. The anarchist has a political position and Ricky Gervais has a theological position.

@retcon1991

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia It's very likely I could have misunderstood! I suppose for me, I'm ultimately uninterested in the true nature of Gervais' position as a sceptic, as this is a frothy chat on a Talk Show. I'm more interested in why many - including myself - find that thought experiment so compelling. The root of it for me is the seeming arbitrariness of picking one creator over myriad other potential choices. Whether or not the logic stands in the comparison between Gervais' and Colbert's 'atheism' feels secondary.

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

RG goes back to this argument again and again, in conversation, in stand up, in his show Afterlife. And people don't seem to see the inanity of it. That's why it's worth engaging. In the video I make the point about defining. It's important to see the categorical difference between God as the Source of being and God as some superbeing like Zeus. That's important to point out, not only if you want to see the inanity of RG's argument, but also for anyone who's interested in engaging with what Christians are actually saying (rather than what stand up comedians joke about :).)

About 6 years ago Whaddo You Meme? did a video called "Ricky Gervais debunked!! (Funny response)" with a bunch of people making the same argument as Ricky but in different situations.

So much smug sophistry! Of the three analogies, only the first is realistic- and only so because it's trivial. Even other anarchists would mock an anarchist who claimed to be "without beliefs as regards politics," and given that awareness of the existence of knowledge is itself knowledge, no sane person would dismiss all current systems of knowledge without offering a reasoned explanation. For Gervais' purpose, the God of the Bible need only be on "exactly the same level as these other 2,000-odd deities" in terms of believability, not in terms of definition. Worse, the Christian God is, inevitably, not the only "source of being" or uncreated creator, because ultimately, every philosophy needs some explanation of existence. Although one approach is to assume an eternal universe, alternatives include the Chinese traditional notion of an orderer-creator emerging from infinite chaos, the Taoist notion of an ordering principle rather than a deity, or of course the Zoroastrian uncreated creator and Lord, Ahuramazda, on whom the Judeo-Christian concept of God seems to be based. And note that "Judeo-Christian". From a Jewish viewpoint, Jesus was not a true messiah, but a bogus claimant who made ingenious use of "fulfilled prophecies" to boost his reputation. "If you are a scientific person you are relying on all kinds of beliefs". Really only one belief, that experience which enables useful predictions about related future experiences is likely to have value. The "History" section severely downplays all current belief systems which are not Christianity, but beyond that, it ignores the reasons why Christianity has so many more adherents than its astonishingly valuable parent, Judaism; principally that Christianity is a system designed to work within organised society- originally the Roman Empire (Judaism is designed to be an independent source of organisation which can work regardless of the state of the surrounding society, but kinship is an ingredient in its formula).

Another "angle of attack" on Ricky is this: "There is a difference between 1 God and 0 God". A pretty massive difference. I think he would agree.

@AngieT-zb6eq

3 ай бұрын

He missed one..the satan..'who is the god of this world who has blinded the minds of the unbelievers' 2 Corintians 4.4

@banmancan1894

3 ай бұрын

Right. Only one of the biggest ontological differences ever.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

@@AngieT-zb6eqHow convenient.

@AaronMonger-ms1wu

2 ай бұрын

Yep he doesn’t think Agnosticism is a valid view, disappointing

What a load of bull 💩 This guy can rambled on and on and he's still didnt say or prove anything ..... 😂😂

I can't stand any more of this. You, sir, are the new Ray Comfort, possessing an extraordinary ability to deliver, with confidence and apparent conviction, utter drivel. Your three analogies all miss the mark. Talk of category error, if these were included on an IQ test - this is to that as that is to this other - you would just fail. On the Romans, they tolerated people worshipping their own little gods, not insisted upon it. So long as they also worshipped their own Roman, big, Gods. Christians were called atheists because they deliberately snubbed the Gods that the Romans thought mattered, and there was not a proliferation of them, they were about the equivalent of the three christian ones, now. The Romans would have willingly tolerated the Christians' worship of their own little god as long as they respected the ones that mattered in their view

@SpeakLifeMedia

3 ай бұрын

Really not sure you've understood the analogies, or the Romans, or my use of either.

@maddi62

3 ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia I bought your book

@danielmcdonagh2889

3 ай бұрын

​@@maddi62 now read it!

@maddi62

3 ай бұрын

@danielmcdonagh2889 I've read it. I'll give you this, Christianity has certainly played a big part in history. Maybe, it has been a key step in the civilisation of mankind, but we have progressed. It was a useful story, as Harari says. You can't put the genie back in the bottle

@danielmcdonagh2889

3 ай бұрын

@@maddi62 why so rude to Glen? Why was Christianity useful? How have we progressed? You haven't offered much in the way of argument. Perhaps Tom Holland could shed some light for you on the Romans and why the Jesus revolution is still reverberating worldwide and even all the way through this comments section in 2024. Do you see the entire world seriously debating Zeus or Osiris? Nope. Jesus. Always Jesus. It comes down to this; is Jesus who He said He was? A truth quest should ensue; if one is honestly seeking the Truth. But most aren't. They are happy to worship their own idols. Their own man made and comfortable idea's. But essentially our personal bias isn't the Truth, no matter how much that may pain us. The Truth isn't a concept but a person. And the Master said: If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Completely misrepresents THE JOKE and the echo chamber laps it up. And no, the people of the book were NOT the first monotheists. In fact the early Israelites didn’t deny the existence of other gods, they were only supposed to worship Yahweh. It’s right there in the book.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Some of the Christians here in the comments are happily admitting their belief in gods other than Yahweh. It's pretty hilarious, but so are most of their beliefs.

love your work :) I recall having a conversation with some people on the train about Jesus and God and such. their response is "we know everything about that" to which I asked "oh? do tell." and then they spoke of how they had attended Scripture Classes until the end of Year 6 (in NSW, in the 90s) and that they were therefore 'experts' in the matter, and as such had rejected Jesus. And I said to them something like "I agree, that is the right thing to do. as an adult you should reject a child's understanding of Jesus. do you want to know about the 'adult version'?" I think I challenged them too hard, as it seems they moved to a different train from that time on :/ but I do pray that they will think a little about that conversation, and maybe investigate a little more.

This guy is an actual “influencer”… I was worried my kids would see Logan Paul until I watched this guy.

Wow, these terrible analogies are terrible. He clearly states his agnosticism, but based on what has been factually proven, and what has never been proven, he is making an informed judgement based on the evidence that is provided him, and all of us, by the way. His conclusion was based on supernatural claims, very important distinction, while you bring up specious strawmen about people arguing politics in a room. That was also only one small part of their conversation. Now address the notion that your religious text, were it destroyed today, would never ever come back as the same book, with the same characters ever again...

@dhoerst

2 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rp This simple point he was making was that if these religious texts are divinely inspired, then everything--word for word, character for character--everything would be exactly the same because it is 'his' word. It doesn't matter that Peter died thousands of years ago. It's divine text. It's perfect and would be exactly the same. Not happening.

@dhoerst

2 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rp To use the words of Gervais in this very video--You say that 'the Bible is a historical record'. I say 'can you prove it'? You say 'no'. Then I say 'I don't believe you'. Also, if you then say you need to rely on the memory of the remaining religious people on the planet today to 'reconstruct' the bible, then you have completely missed the point and not doing your argument any favors at all.

@dhoerst

2 ай бұрын

@@YuelSea-sw2rpI The specific author of said books was never the issue, well aside from the fact that the bible HAS to be written by the christian god, but we'll ignore that little quibble here. If an early text on the observation of biological changes in the species of our planet was written by Anheuser Busch, we'd be in exactly the same place that we are here now in 2024. We are continually learning, via scientific methods.

Glens argument is not very good

Very helpful brother. Thank you.

I'll take "obtuse category errors" for $500, Alex. Ricky is far too intelligent to make this sort of mistake. It's just tiresome.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Oh, irony.

This is utter BS lies. This takes Ricky's point way out of context. This was not an argument against God's existence - it's an argument against why one should not/does not believe in God's existence. Ricky even prefaced it with the idea of him being an agnostic atheist and then went on to put his point within a hypothetical statement by a theist (Colbert). Ricky said - "you say God exists and I say can you prove it and you say no and I say then I don't believe you." Ricky then went on to then show why Colbert and thus theists (particularly monotheists) do the exact same thing with regard to all the other gods. He is trying to show to you and every other theist why atheists don't believe in any gods - there is not sufficient evidence for them to believe in any of them - the difference is that Colbert and others despite no proof choose to believe but really don't KNOW - which gets back to the point of him bringing up agnostic positions on both sides. Ricky just goes one god further. He is trying to show Colbert why he does not believe in his God by showing Colbert why he does not believe in all the other gods. How you utterly distorted this and then went on a long windy strawman is so typical of you guys.

I do believe in them… it’s the divine council. I worship the One True God, but there are many gods.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Good luck proving all of that.

This guy is full of himself, won't be back to Speak Life.

Great marriage analogy. The NT uses marriage so often to picture our faith. Effective.

Very well said. I used to make stupid arguments like those of Mr. Gervais. Then I grew up intellectually and spiritually.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Now you just make ad hominem arguments!

@mikenielsen8781

3 ай бұрын

@@user-ro9lu7uo1j I was making no argument whatsoever, simply an observation -- sharing an opinion.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

@@mikenielsen8781 Oh, just like Mr. Gervais? By all means, carry on.

@mikenielsen8781

3 ай бұрын

@@user-ro9lu7uo1j I see you have difficulty distinguishing between an argument and an opinion. Maybe you haven't come to that yet in middle school. Ask your teacher.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

@@mikenielsen8781 Are you capable of anything other than ad hominem attacks?

Not only did Joe Rogan repeat this tripe, but Michael Shermer used it as his main point in his address at the Oxford Union. Before some of the brightest young minds on the planet, he used an argument I'd think a 10-year-old of average intelligence to see the flaws in. I've got a deck of cards and am looking for the ace of spades. Chances are 1 in 52 in my first pick. After I've reduced the pile by having selected, let's say 40 that weren't the ace of spades, are my chances of getting the sought-after card better than when I began or worse than when I began? The One Less God thing begs the question.

@andrewofaiur

3 ай бұрын

The fallacy in your analogy is that you are assuming everyone else is also looking for the ace of spades. The problem isn't that people can't correctly pick the ace of spades but that someone else is saying the four of hearts is the correct card or someone else is saying all of them are the correct cards. In other words, your analogy is circular reasoning because your premise is assuming the conclusion. I think even a 10 year old could understand your argument is flawed.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewofaiur You say, *"The fallacy in your analogy is that you are assuming everyone else is also looking for the ace of spades."* The fallacy in your comment is to think that I'm referring to everyone. I'm not. I'm referring, in this case, to one 10-year-old. Or in Ricky Gervais's case with Stephen Colbert, what billions of other people believe has not the slightest bearing on whether any God exists. In fact, whether any God does exist doesn't depend on whether anyone believes in God's existence. That reality is independent of anyone's belief. It is the same with any truth claim. The truth of the claim does not depend on anyone believing in it.

@andrewofaiur

3 ай бұрын

@@samdg1234 'whether any God does exist doesn't depend on whether anyone believes in God's existence' also requires assumptions on your part, otherwise it's just the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it, did it make a sound" - assumption being that God is in fact reality when the argument needs to first establish that God is in fact reality. I fail to see how the ace of spades analogy and God being independent of anyone's beliefs is any different in logic because they both first need to commit to the premise that God is real which is the very premise that atheists like Gervais is denying so there's no progress being made here.

@kennorthunder2428

3 ай бұрын

​@@andrewofaiur I've narrowed my argument for God by an entirely different approach, starting with an area that is less emotionally fraught. Thusly: recently cosmologists have developed complicated equations, that show the design of the universe as well as predict various things, that when historians looked at realized these equations were used by ancient Egyptians had also developed exactly the same equations. So, did mathematicians INVENT equations or did they DISCOVER equations? and, are equations the product of a mind? The fact that people thousands of years apart came up with the exact same equations forces one to accept that they DISCOVERED equations. But they were ALSO the product of their minds. So it's minds meeting minds. It also shows that we're embedded in a circular system. Now switching to the Judeo-Christian world view. We are operating on a metaphysical/spiritual equation that is put on display in the Genisis account with God testing Adam & Eve. This equation is used by use on a continual basis by all of humanity in almost every sphere of life, including law. It is simultaineously a law, design, principle & equation. God tested Adam & Eve thusly: Do you recognize/perceive that I am good, while using the tool/paradigm of logic & truth, to the degree that you can trust me, and in the trusting, will you obey and love me. All of this is the basis for love. Love is a gradiuated spectrum - at the top is worship and at the bottom is platonic dignity. Ideas like courteousy, patience, kindness, long-suffering, care, professionalism are all indices on that scale. What they all have in common is: voluntarily putting yourself second for the good of the other. In otherwords, pain and sacrifice. Adjacent to that scale is attachment - commonly called love. This equation can actually be tested with the scientific method. Feed trust with a known lie or evil, and trust will devolve and die. We use this equation and design from everything to reject oppressive governmentsm to personal relationships. We can't help but do so because it's a law tantamount to the law of gravity. In the "center" of this equation is the ego. You have to assess. You get help from your community and by searching and thinking, but you need help from God if you want a realtionship with God. Show me any other religion that shows this principle initiated by their creator. It also defies logic to think that these are serendipitous. It's our mind meeting the mind of God.

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewofaiur Can we finish with the 10-year-old before moving on? Will you agree that I can deal with one person at a time and make no implication to anyone else? Nothing in my comment depends on what you've said here, *"The fallacy in your analogy is that you are assuming everyone else is also looking for the ace of spades."* My analogy is only to a person who is looking for the ace of spades. That's it. I'm talking to one person at a time. If you want to continue, let's leave the tree falling for now.

The cognitive dissonance in this video is incredible. I gave up when you attempted the bachelor analogy. Besides the fact that you gave away that you CHOSE your God (and therefore you can't believe there is only one), Ricky's "thought experiment" (it isn't one, you've mislabeled a fact to weaken its power, and failed) is about the EXISTENCE of one. You are like the bachelor who simply denies that the other billions of women exist in the world, while your imaginary wife is the only one, and in defense of this the most you can offer is "because I said so". I feel sorry for anyone who is persuaded by your lack of argument and your faulty logic, but then they already suffer from faulty logic if they believe in a God for which there is no evidence.

Grow up, do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

I think it’s interesting that you are boring

Im going to be real i dont believe in god and it is honestly so cringe watching you guys debate this. Lol can you disprove science 🤣 haha do you have a degree in physics if not why do you get to make these theories and not him. Lol and his knowledge comes from humanity's facts just like ricky said if you got rid of all the holy books they wouldn't reappear in a 1000 years but the science books would hahaha. Thats simply because religion is absolutely full of crap, grow up Santa isnt real either guys sorry 😅

I met Jesus a couple of years ago and He and His love totally changed my life

@vaeItaja

2 ай бұрын

mmmkay

@dscoronach

2 ай бұрын

What did he look like?

@sollerhollersoulblade6126

Ай бұрын

​@@dscoronach classic 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

Clever to use the 3-2-1 concept. In USA, we use the OJ Simpson analogy (yes, he was found not guilty; so use any other murder investigation). I believe that 8.7 billion people didn't commit the murder. You just believe in one less person who did not commit the murder. Yes, but their is the evidence question.//I liked the doubters and believers analogy among the three. We all have a belief, as I believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali brought out in an interview on this website.

An insightful and educational teaching.

The solipsist could tell Ricky Gervais the same exact thing. This is essentially what atheism argues for all the time with their "view from nowhere/the burden of proof is on you" nonsense. Solipsism and atheism are not the default worldviews., Belief in other minds and belief in God are the default human views. If you are going to deny those, you better bring an overwhelming amount of evidence and argument, because belief in views are foundations, as much as belief in free will, morality, etc. It is built into the very fabric of humanity. The fringe views are solipsism and atheism, not the other way around.

@user-ro9lu7uo1j

3 ай бұрын

Solipsism may well be the default. When we first open our eyes, we begin with "I think, therefore I am," and then experience quickly disabuses us of that notion. Atheism very much is the default worldview. No baby or animal harbours a god belief, and even they can use evidence and instinct and all the rest to puzzle out a way to feed themselves and stay warm. The existence of the world is a brute fact; the existence of any god, not so much. Luckily we live in what appears to be a natural world, and no supernatural explanations for its origins are necessary. I bet you have some funny ideas about onus probandi. I'd be lying if I said I'm dying to hear them, though.

The category error is that Gervais is an Atheist - the meaning of the word is that he has no belief in any God, no matter how many you could imagine - the one more is irrelevant from an atheists point of view. If he said he didn't believe in hitting anyone and I said I really believed in hitting him, and the proceded to do so, how long do you think he would continue claiming that I was a really like him and didn't believe in hitting anyone? 🤣🤣🤣

Gervais has never met anyone of Glen's calibre. His audience is carefully curated. He states time and time again that an experience at the age of eight - namely his mother's inability to articulate her faith - convinced him God didn't exist. That is plainly lazy and infantile thinking.

Ricky assumes the Bible does not think gods exist. This is completely incorrect. Christians just believe that there is only one uncreated most high God and the others are imposters. It's not a case of existence it's a case of am I loyal to the true most high God

Very good response

It is impossible for Richard Gervais to believe in any god other than himself. He loves himself so much, there is absolutely no room for any other god.

Like all athiests I've ever met, the level of the logic is about that of a 15 or 16 year old in the playground

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

Come on, 15 or 16-year-olds aren't often Einstein's but they often show much more acumen than most atheists.

@con_boy

3 ай бұрын

@samdg1234 the arguments athiest use are all counter arguments that are quite easily refuted. Everything they say about Christianity is invariably wrong. There are no technical arguments for athiesm, but there are 7 deductive arguments for God (by deductive I mean syllogisms- where if the premises are more likely than not, God must exist) they are : the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from initial Conditions (Teleological Argument), The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, and Leibenitz' Contingency Argument. (There are others too, I forget their names) None have been defeated: so there are no deductive proofs for athiesm and seven for theism. Remember that. As someone once said: "I'm an athiest: so I'll refuse to grant you any miracles, but you have to grant me one" (big bang)

@samdg1234

3 ай бұрын

@@con_boy While agree with much of what you've said, some of it seems at least ambiguous. You say, *"the arguments athiest use are all counter arguments"* I may be willing to grant that in a general sense. Take this piffle about "You Deny One Less God" I guess it should be seen as a counter-argument to the proposition, "God exists," but it counters no specific argument (that I'm aware of) for God's existence. Also, you say, *"Everything they say about Christianity is invariably wrong."* That is almost invariably an over-statement, but we are all prone (me as much as anyone) to that tendency. You go on, *"I mean syllogisms- where if the premises are more likely than not, God must exist) they are : the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"* Have you missed all of the videos debunking the Kalam? 🤣Of course, I say that in total jest. If anyone's argument is to be truly debunked it needs to be done in the presence of someone offering the best defence of the argument supposedly being debunked. One of the best examples I'm aware of of this is Alex O'Connor (the former CosmicSkeptic) virtual sit-down with WLC, "William Lane Craig and CosmicSkeptic Discuss The Kalam Cosmological Argument" wherein Alex attempts to debunk the Kalam. The debunking went severely off the rails. But to Alex's credit, he responded to that encounter by making a video debunking himself. Kudos to him on that occasion. Alex had been left pretty much dumb-founded by the end with nothing to rebut Craig's, “Let me commend you for your method, Alex. Because, by pushing these questions, what you help the atheist to see is the intellectual price tag of his atheism.” I made some notes on the video of both WLC and of Alex making concessionary comments. I'm going to post them here if interested. Comments on William Lane Craig and CosmicSkeptic Discuss The Kalam Cosmological Argument WLC being concessionary - 56;40, 1;00;30, 1;03;40, 1;05;33, 1;06;09 At 1;02;00 Alex admits it is “a strange line of thought” At 1;02;50 Alex says that he has learned “how radical” his view is and that “he (WLC) is probably right” At 1;03;25 Alex says that “is a really interesting radical implication of my view that I’ll give some thought.” At 1;04;17 Alex says that “I guess the implications are more radical now that I think about it” At 1;06;43 Alex ponders why don’t things come into being without a cause all the time outside of the universe. At 1;08;15 Alex says that what he is about to say, “it seems absurd on the surface” At 1;10;50 Alex again concedes that what he is suggesting “sounds absurd”. At 1;11;03 Alex laughs and says, “it sounds strange” At 1;11;18 Alex says, “that I suppose what I am trying to do is make at least a far-fetched case” At 1;11;38 WLC says, “Let me commend you for your method Alex. Because, by pushing these questions, what you help the atheist to see is the intellectual price tag of his atheism.” Alex seems to totally accept this, or at least he is totally without any rebuttal. Alex demonstrated considerable integrity by making a video debunking a previous video he'd made critiquing the Kalm. He even addresses what you brought up here. He'd previously presented it as you have, that you can't get to a particular God from the Kalam. His first video was titled, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Arguments For God Episode #4)" His rebuttal video was titled, "COSMIC SKEPTIC DEBUNKED" And a funny video covering some of the same material, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?"

I Doubt Your Sanity