Why I'm an Atheist. By Ricky Gervais

[alexey]

That's ONLY if we don't take into consideration why we exist (or why a "creator" would create us) to begin with...in that context the "bad" that we experience serves no purpose other than inflicting unnecessary pain.

Nah, definitely other perspectives for believers to take that both make sense and adhere to their beliefs of a "loving" creator.

I am a loving parent, and let me tell you that I would never ever even conceive of putting my children through the kind of horrors humanity has experienced throughout its history... even that may constitute a valuable learning experience or serve some other useful purpose.

(I understand that Salvation is the ultimate and only real useful purpose, and it all makes sense if suffering is the only if getting there, etc... my point is that Faith is Faith. If you accept Jesus as your savior, then it all comes together and makes sense.)

[Commander PK]

Personally, my views on the subject are complex. I don't think science necessarily disproves God, and I don't think that to believe in God you have to disagree with science. I think the whole situation is much more complicated then we can understand.

I believe there is a "higher power." What exactly that is I don't know. I don't believe that God is an elderly Caucasian male with a white beard. I believe Christ existed, but I don't believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes. I don't believe every story in the Bible, nor do I believe that the Bible, a book written by man is a "blueprint" for how one should live their lives.

On the flip side, Science creates "scientific fact" out of what scientists "think" happened based off of educated guesses, otherwise know as hypothesis. The truth, is that no man can know exactly what happened 14 billion years ago, and it's human arrogance to think that we can. Only a handful of men have ever even walked on our closest neighboring planet, and we think we "know" how the entire universe developed?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I am a loving parent, and let me tell you that I would never ever even conceive of putting my children through the kind of horrors humanity has experienced throughout its history... even that may constitute a valuable learning experience or serve some other useful purpose.

(I understand that Salvation is the ultimate and only real useful purpose, and suffering is what it takes to get there, etc... my point is that Faith is Faith.)

That's because of your reason for becoming a parent...which goes back to what I was saying before about better understanding why we exist in the first place (or at the very least expanding our philosophies on that subject).

[alexey]

That's because of your reason for becoming a parent...which goes back to what I was saying before about better understanding why we exist in the first place (or at the very least expanding our philosophies on that subject).

Reason for becoming a parent, you mean like, not using birth control? :pfft:

Perhaps due to my secular background I think that tsunamis happen due to underwater earthquakes and such, and also that a great deal of suffering that people experienced throughout history and continue to experience today is caused by other people, and its a dang shame.

[djbubba4life]

His claim is, “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,”

How does the sun stay exactly the right distance from us, without getting too close or too far away? How does the moon circle us perfectly so as to reflect the sun at night? The water come to us as we need it, the foods that we need to nourish us exist all over, etc. Something as complicated as our circulatory system clearly has a design. If there is a design, there must be a designer.

"Science"

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Reason for becoming a parent, you mean like, not using birth control? :pfft:

LoL Exactly...it's not like we exist because God knocked up a waitress in Toledo or something lol ...

If the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God does indeed exist, then His reasons for creating mankind and the universe should go a looooooooooooong way in explaining why things are the way they are.

Perhaps due to my secular background I think that tsunamis happen due to underwater earthquakes and such, and also that a great deal of suffering that people experienced throughout history and continue to experience today is caused by other people, and its a dang shame.

As my old philosophy professor put it when someone posed the thought of if God is supposed to be perfect then why isn't this world he created perfect as well..."What if the existence of all the "bad" things that can occur is necessary for this world to BE perfect?"...

[techboy]

I see only one way for a believer out of this conundrum - we could not possibly understand or explain why these things happen. It's God's will. Our faith in a loving God needs no proof.

Actually, the most sophisticated answer I've seen to the problem of suffering is this:

It cannot really be argued that it is the moral obligation of a loving God to create a world without suffering. It can be argued that it is the moral obligation of a loving God to create the best possible world.

In order for the nontheist to press home this objection, it then becomes necessary to demonstrate that suffering is incompatible with this being the best possible world (which is often the hidden premise in arguments from suffering found in the common realm), and that's actually a very high hurdle, especially when the eternal (and not just the here and now) is taken into account.

We know, for instance, that this is probably not the worst possible world, because if it was, everyone would probably have committed suicide rather than remain in it.

Of course, the more sophisticated nontheist, rather than attempting to prove that suffering is absolutely incompatible with the existence of God (an approach that is so fraught with difficulty that I understand it's not really attempted in philosophical circles these days), will instead suggest that the existence of suffering makes the existence of a loving God less probable.

Then, though, we're back to the issue that these things can't be judged in a vacuum. The existence of suffering probably makes the existence of God less probable (appealing to the eternal probably eliminates outright incompatibility, but doesn't do nearly as much in this case), but there are lots of other fatcors (including the apparent fine-tuning for life discussed above) which make the existence of God more probable.

Many of the most sophisticated arguments today examine whether a particular set of data is more compatible with theism or naturalism (not a lock-solid "proof" one way or the other for any particular case), and then a comprehensive judgement can be made only by looking at all the various markers, not just one.

I don't believe that God is an elderly Caucasian male with a white beard.

Neither do Christians.

I believe Christ existed, but I don't believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes.

Neither does any Christian that's visited the area that Jesus grew up in (or even read about it).

[alexey]

As my old philosophy professor put it when someone posed the thought of if God is supposed to be perfect then why isn't this world he created perfect as well..."What if the existence of all the "bad" things that can occur is necessary for this world to BE perfect?"...

It's a good point, but it talks about "perfect". My difficulty is seeing how a "loving and caring" God would allow or cause such horrors. My understanding of what it means to be "loving and caring" is incompatible with things that God causes or fails to prevent.

[Rocky21]

I haven't read all 13 pages of this thread but did anyone convert anyone to their side in this debate?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It's a good point, but it talks about "perfect". My difficulty is seeing how a "loving and caring" God would allow or cause such horrors. My understanding of what it means to be "loving and caring" is incompatible with things that God causes or fails to prevent.

Again, if an all-knowing and all-powerful God does indeed exist, then His understanding and knowledge of Life, death, and everything in-between and afterwards would cause Him to view earthly things in a far, FAR different light than we currently do, wouldn't you say? It's a bit arrogant for us to claim that if God does exist and is all-loving, then he must behave according to our wishes and desires. Why don't we instead say that if God does exist and is all-loving, then maybe I need to re-asses how I view things.

It's like having your teenager tell you that if you really loved them, then you'd do things the way they want you to do them...we are essentially the "child" to God's "parent" in this debate. And, yeah, much like teenagers everywhere we think we know all and deem our parent's rules to be arbitrary and make no sense...Give mankind another million years worth of evolving and debate and we'll be in our "college" years, looking back at ourselves at teenagers and laughing at how ignorant we were back then thinking we knew it all lol...

[alexey]

Actually, the most sophisticated answer I've seen to the problem of suffering is this:

It cannot really be argued that it is the moral obligation of a loving God to create a world without suffering. It can be argued that it is the moral obligation of a loving God to create the best possible world.

In order for the nontheist to press home this objection, it then becomes necessary to demonstrate that suffering is incompatible with this being the best possible world (which is often the hidden premise in arguments from suffering found in the common realm), and that's actually a very high hurdle, especially when the eternal (and not just the here and now) is taken into account.

We know, for instance, that this is probably not the worst possible world, because if it was, everyone would probably have committed suicide rather than remain in it.

Of course, the more sophisticated nontheist, rather than attempting to prove that suffering is absolutely incompatible with the existence of God (an approach that is so fraught with difficulty that I understand it's not really attempted in philosophical circles these days), will instead suggest that the existence of suffering makes the existence of a loving God less probable.

Then, though, we're back to the issue that these things can't be judged in a vacuum. The existence of suffering probably makes the existence of God less probable (appealing to the eternal probably eliminates outright incompatibility, but doesn't do nearly as much in this case), but there are lots of other fatcors (including the apparent fine-tuning for life discussed above) which make the existence of God more probable.

Many of the most sophisticated arguments today examine whether a particular set of data is more compatible with theism or naturalism (not a lock-solid "proof" one way or the other for any particular case), and then a comprehensive judgement can be made only by looking at all the various markers, not just one.

I think that we simply cannot talk about probabilities when it comes to God. There is no method for determining probabilities.

If you have faith that God exists, then the probability of God existing is 100% for you. If not, then you are acknowledging a myriad of possibilities and lack of any reasonable basis for assigning probabilities to them. You can talk about these "probabilities" as a philosophical exercise, but I don't think you have any way of grounding them.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 01:11 PM ----------

Again, if an all-knowing and all-powerful God does indeed exist, then His understanding and knowledge of Life, death, and everything in-between and afterwards would cause Him to view earthly things in a far, FAR different light than we currently do, wouldn't you say? It's a bit arrogant for us to claim that if God does exist and is all-loving, then he must behave according to our wishes and desires. Why don't we instead say that if God does exist and is all-loving, then maybe I need to re-asses how I view things.

It's like having your teenager tell you that if you really loved them, then you'd do things the way they want you to do them...we are essentially the "child" to God's "parent" in this debate. And, yeah, much like teenagers everywhere we think we know all and deem our parent's rules to be arbitrary and make no sense...Give mankind another million years worth of evolving and debate and we'll be in our "college" years, looking back at ourselves at teenagers and laughing at how ignorant we were back then thinking we knew it all lol...

I understand that. It's just that I also have an understanding of what it means to be "loving and caring", and I have a hard time reconciling that understanding with utter despicable horrors that God allows or fails to prevent. My point is that a belief in a loving and caring God is a matter of Faith.

Yes in a way the teenager faces that same question, whether to have faith and view his seemingly cruel parents as loving and caring. I think that example would be more appropriate if that teenager's parents were pouring molten led down his throat for no apparent reason.

[The Sisko]

I feel sad for him and others that feel the same.

As an agnostic, I find this incredibly condescending. Others have covered that ground much better than I could though. So I’ll just point out how much that seems to be at odds with your sense of rugged individualism.

For me the day I finally accepted my own individual morality/fallibility as the sole basis for my behavior was incredibly empowering. Mind you I’m not getting at individual choice which I acknowledge has its place in many religious beliefs. Rather, I’m talking about the underpinnings of why we do, or don’t do certain things. Therefore, I find it infinitely more satisfying (and plausible) to believe in my own intrinsic goodness or lack thereof as the basis for my actions. The concept is not unlike how a friend of mine handles Christmas. He’s never lied to his son about Santa Claus not because he’s deeply religious but rather because he doesn’t want his kids mis-attributing the appreciation for their gifts.

Humanity always seems to make that gigantic leap once they reach the end of understanding that an omniscient being must be behind it. The fact that we just don't know the answer seems to be a concept most of us can't fathom. It's sort of the basis of a lot of the faith. We cannot imagine oblivion. So we create something comfortable in it's place.. heaven. We can't imagine that once we're gone, we're truly gone, so we pretend there's something more, that there's a great truth, a "meaning" to our existance.

We may not have any meaning at all. The "why are we here" question may very well be answered with "There is no reason. We just are."

But it's hard for humanity as a collective whole to view itself as something that is ultimately insignificant to anything other than our own little world in the short time any one of us is on it.

And that possibility is ignored in favor of a story that wraps it all up in a nice neat easy-to-understand package.

~Bang

I've read the whole thread and damn is it good. Great points on both sides. However I think Bang's comment above gets at something that for me forms much of the crux of the matter, i.e. the role our perception plays.

Part of what gives humans the large advantage we have over other species is our ability to detect and discern even minute patterns in our environment, learn from them and apply that knowledge to other situations. However, that ability can work against us in that we will see patterns even when none exist. In other words, when presented with completely random events with no patterns whatsoever, the human brain will struggle and struggle and will finally make a pattern because that's what our minds evolved (or in fairness, were designed) to do.

As a very practical-minded person who respects but has difficulty grasping much of the physics-based esoterica of the arguments in this thread, this simple fact swings the pendulum a lot for me because of the old axiom about hoofbeats and zebras. In this case I think the least fantastic proposition is that humans have created god(s) out of a random reality because that’s just what our brains do.

Ultimately, as someone pointed out earlier, I have the utmost respect for those that have taken the intellectual journey toward truly understanding and having a real basis for their beliefs…no matter where that journey ends.

[Skins_Fan82]

Once you choose to go with reason, you have to go where it takes you. It is, indeed, almost certain that God does not exist.

.

agreed...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

agreed...

Ironically, it was logic and reason that lead me to believing that God exists.

[SkinsNumberOne]

The more sophisticated version of the teleological argument (such as presented by Dr. Collins in the link above) talks about the probabilities involved with the universe being able to support any life (not just ours), so this doesn't actually hurt the case. In some ways, it's just the opposite, in fact.

From reading the link you provided, Dr. Collins seems to be some kind of "philosopher/scientist" and the approach taken appears to be (again just from reading the material in the link) more along the lines of examination of evidence with beliefs firmly in place (i.e. somewhat biased interpretation of evidence).

I think I prefer Hawkins' examination of the evidence. I also tend to prefer what I've seen in other scientists' study of things of this nature; they say - basically - that a pure approach to science alongside faith is completely reasonable. You study science and your faith instructs you that the purest approach will, eventually (no telling how long it will take), prove your faith to be true. Science doesn't have to admit the existence of something for you to believe in it. That also doesn't believe that you have to try to make science admit the existence either; rather, you should have patience and trust that a pure approach to science will still - eventually - result in proving what you honestly feel you know to be true.

[PeterMP]

First, it doesn't seem very effective to attempt to refute observable evidence with a hypothesis which has not, to date, been experimentally supported (and might be untestable), to the point where I've seen physicists describe the multi-verse hypothesis as metaphysics (and I don't think it was a compliment).

But you are doing the samething with respect to fine tuning. Even read the abstract of the paper you posted:

"I argue that the key property of life is its information content, and speculate that the

emergence of the requisite information-processing machinery might require quantum information theory for a satisfactory explanation."

He speculates.

"Some clues about how decoherence might be evaded are discussed."

Some clues.

If the basis of the paper is speculation and clues, then certainly speculation and clues are an equal response.

Anybody commenting on life existing in a universe with different variables (and the constants are related to things like the initial state of the universe. If the strength of the big bang is altered, then you can account for that and get a "similar" universe by altering different constants (e.g. gravity)) is putting forward "a hypothesis which has not, to date, been experimentally supported (and might be untestable)"

I'll just short-circuit the whole affair and assume that God exists.

I support that action 100%.

Secondly, though, the multi-verse hypothesis, even if assumed to be true, doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument. Dr. Collins has two papers on that page (the first technical, the second not since it is the text of a speech), and in the second there is this:

First, realistically, there MUST be a "universe maker". If there wasn't, there would be no universe. If there is a "universe maker", there is no reason to believe that it can't/hasn't made many universes.

Second, if the universe maker includes the components of the universe, why must its "maker" be more complex then the universe?

[PeterMP]

Why is that surprising? We are talking about changing a fundamental property of a massively interconnected system... of course it's very difficult if at all possible.

Yes, but I doubt a person that "thought" that way would also think he somehow altered the system with respect to thinking about his wife before going to sleep (at least if he was being intellectually honest (of course, I'm assuming the person is able to "control" their thoughts in a manner that I would consider them considering things in an intellectually honest manner)).

If one action is likely impossible, then the other must surely be very difficult to the point that it would take an extended period of time to carry out.

[PeterMP]

Therefore, I find it infinitely more satisfying (and plausible) to believe in my own intrinsic goodness or lack thereof as the basis for my actions.

Why would you believe you are intrinsically good (or not good)? You might argue that you are more "fit" (from an evolutionary perspective) than others, but fitness depends on conditions and so it is also completely possible, that you actually are LESS fit than most others (your genetic material was more fit, but that was based on conditions 25 years ago) and your genetic material will be completely lost in the future so you are essentially a waste of resources in an evolutionary dead end (I know that sounds cold and don't honestly mean directly at you, but am using the pronoun you in response to your use of the pronoun I. Feel free to subsitute me, I, us, we, them, him, her, you (meaning me) etc as you desire).

And good and not good don't even make any sense.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I understand that. It's just that I also have an understanding of what it means to be "loving and caring", and I have a hard time reconciling that understanding with utter despicable horrors that God allows or fails to prevent. My point is that a belief in a loving and caring God is a matter of Faith.

My point, though, is that it can also be a matter of reason and understanding due to a change in perception. It's too simplistic to always claim that the only way anyone can reconcile the idea of a loving God and all the "bad" things that occur during human existence is if you give up rational thought and go simply on faith. And it all starts with why we exist in the first place imo...

And I guess I should ask: why do you believe we exist? Or rather, if God does indeed exist, why do you believe He created us and all of this that surrounds us?

Yes in a way the teenager faces that same question, whether to have faith and view his seemingly cruel parents as loving and caring. I think that example would be more appropriate if that teenager's parents were pouring molten led down his throat for no apparent reason.

To an over-emotional 15 year old insecure girl going through the first stages of puberty, having her parents tell her that she can no longer date the "love of her life" is the equivalent of having molten lead poured down her throat, though lol...

But the comparison is flawed anyway, since it takes on the viewpoint that God purposefully caused every "bad" thing to happen, and did so for "no apparent reason" (as you put it). In a scenario in which God does indeed exist, then there most definitely IS a reason for everything, for every action, for every experience.

[Skins24]

Can someone explain this 13 page thread in a paragraph or less?

Who is Ricky Gervais and why I should I care what he is? Did he cure cancer or something by explaining why he's an athiest? If not who cares....

And is the title purposely spelled that way? :whoknows:

[zoony]

I fixed the title. I just couldn't take it anymore, and nobody even noticed my dumbass joke on post 33.

....

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I fixed the title. I just couldn't take it anymore, and nobody even noticed my dumbass joke on post 33.

....

I kept imagining Popeye saying the thread title lol ...

[PokerPacker]

I fixed the title. I just couldn't take it anymore, and nobody even noticed my dumbass joke on post 33.

....

If it makes you feel any better, the title was bothering me, too, and I did silently enjoy your joke.

[Mr. Sinister]

I fixed the title. I just couldn't take it anymore, and nobody even noticed my dumbass joke on post 33.

....

Me neither, I just didn't feel like being labeled as a douche for calling for an MET

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Can someone explain this 13 page thread in a paragraph or less?

In one sentence: thread is a cool, civil discussion about various aspects of faith, believing in God, science, not believing in God, and pop tarts.

Who is Ricky Gervais and why I should I care what he is? Did he cure cancer or something by explaining why he's an athiest? If not who cares....

Mildly entertaining comic or something like that, watch the movie "The Invention Of Lying", where among other things he portrays the idea of God as being a made-up story to ease humans into accepting death....and has Jennifer Garner telling anyone who will listen that she just masturbated.