Why I'm an Atheist. By Ricky Gervais

[PeterMP]

pop tarts

I LOVE pop tarts. I haven't had one in the longest time, but my daughter talked my wife into buying some. Some of the other kids at her day care bring them for snacks, but then she decided she didn't actually like them, and I have been gobbelling them up.

[Mr. Sinister]

I LOVE pop tarts. I haven't had one in the longest time, but my daughter talked my wife into buying some. Some of the other kids at her day care bring them for snacks, but then she decided she didn't actually like them, and I have been gobbelling them up.

Pound for pound, I would say that the brown sugar/cinnamon/ untoasted, is the Undisputed no. 1.

[gbear]

What if all of us are "god?" What if we are but a part of a larger system, and that system is "god?" Yes, we progress, get stronger. However, much like cells in an immune system, occassionaly there are bad apples that destroy far more than they protect. Our immune system gets stronger as it survives exposure (upto a point). Maybe our destiny or purpose as a race is to preserve some part of god be it physical, intellectual or other?

The "god" may simply be existance or reality. Perhaps the correct question is not "Is there a god?" but rather "If there was a viewing glass where we could see God in entirety would we be able to see us and our role?" Over the eons, man has constantly looked to the devine to explain or comfort him in the face of uncertainty be it storms, death or women. We always looked outward using the devine to explain what we saw. Maybe that blinded us to a bigger picture and our part in it. How often is the Holy Spirit really thought of when thinking about God? To my mind that always seemed the most likely/most closely approximating my thoughts on the liekly existance of god/gods.

[Dan T.]

What if all of us are "god?" What if we are but a part of a larger system, and that system is "god?" Yes, we progress, get stronger. However, much like cells in an immune system, occassionaly there are bad apples that destroy far more than they protect. Our immune system gets stronger as it survives exposure (upto a point). Maybe our destiny or purpose as a race is to preserve some part of god be it physical, intellectual or other?

The "god" may simply be existance or reality. Perhaps the correct question is not "Is there a god?" but rather "If there was a viewing glass where we could see God in entirety would we be able to see us and our role?" Over the eons, man has constantly looked to the devine to explain or comfort him in the face of uncertainty be it storms, death or women. We always looked outward using the devine to explain what we saw. Maybe that blinded us to a bigger picture and our part in it. How often is the Holy Spirit really thought of when thinking about God? To my mind that always seemed the most likely/most closely approximating my thoughts on the liekly existance of god/gods.

Whoa. You just blew my mind.

BTW, Toaster Strudels >>>> Pop Tarts

[techboy]

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

As it turns out, many philosophers do attempt to ground these (and other similarly esoteric) discussions' probabilities with Bayes' theorem.

That being said, I don't even think you need to go that route, because like in many disciplines, we don't need to use exact numbers in order to talk probabilities.

To move the discussion to something a bit less controversial, historians don't generally talk about certainties because of the limitations of the historical method. Instead, they talk about probabilities.

They might, for instance, say that it is "very probable" that Caesar crossed the Rubicon based on the extant evidence, but you're not usually going to get them to say something like "Oh... it's 92% likely".

Philosophical arguments often work the same way, and I see no reason to treat discussions of God as somehow special and requiring specific numbers. We can say that there probably is a God, or, as one pretty intelligent poster wrote:

It is, indeed, almost certain that God does not exist.

That's a statement of probability, without any math that I can find to ground it.

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.

Well, first, nobody is unbiased in this matter, and certainly not Stephen Hawking, who has jumped into the fray on the existence of God recently with both feet. Oddly enough in that case, he declared philosophy dead, then proceeded to do bad philosophy, which was a little odd. But that's really beside the point.

Second, while you can (and should) keep the biases of the author in mind, it's fallacious to reject an argument simply because of its source. Arguments should be judged on their merits.

Finally, if the order of belief bothers you, how about another Collins, i.e Francis? You probably know who he is... doctor and evolutionary biologist, head of the Human Genome Project, etc... He became a Christian later in life, after interacting with his patients (he was an atheist). He wrote a book, and has a website, and he talks about various arguments for the existence of God, including the very teleological argument we've been discussing. Check out the website if you'd like.

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.

Actually, that seems to me to be exactly what is happening. One quick example: For literally centuries, theists would argue that God created the Universe, and atheists would respond no, it is the universe which is eternal. Well, in the 20th century the Big Bang theory took hold, and it indicates that the Universe came out of literally nothing about 14 billion years ago (i.e. not eternal, and very consistent with a theistic view of creation).

Now obviously, research is ongoing, and perhaps tomorrow that will change, but for right now, it sure seems like the science backs up the theists. Fine tuning seems to be another area where this is true.

But you are doing the samething with respect to fine tuning.

No, I don't think so. As I noted, fine tuning is pretty much an accepted fact of Physics. Taking this observed and confirmed data and reasoning from it, even if that might involve some speculation around the edges, is a different animal altogether than proposing as an alternative a theory that fits the facts, but which we have no real reason to believe is so. I mean, a physicist compared it to reincarnation, for Pete's sake (no pun intended ).

We could say that "God created the Universe 5 minutes ago complete with the appearance of age, undigested stomach contents, and memories" is an alternative hypothesis that fits the facts too, but I don't think many would seriously accept it as an alternative to evolution, or the age of the universe, or anything else for that matter.

Of course, Collins might disagree with me, as he seems to have spent a fair amount of time responding to the possibility. I don't know if that's because he takes it seriously, or because he knows that people will raise it seriously.

I support that action 100%.

I figured someone would seize on that.

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

....

To be honest, I actually thought the title was accurate, and that Gervais was making a joke.

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...

Yes, Gervais appears to be becoming at least mildly evangelical about his atheism.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 03:43 PM ----------

I LOVE pop tarts.

My wife won't let me buy them.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 03:45 PM ----------

Over the eons, man has constantly looked to the devine to explain or comfort him in the face of uncertainty be it storms, death or women.

I love how you slipped that in there.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Pound for pound, I would say that the brown sugar/cinnamon/ untoasted, is the Undisputed no. 1.

The pop tart they used to make with the chococolate crust/vanilla filling/vanilla frosting kicked all their asses...

They need to make a rum cake pop tart lol

[techboy]

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, Pop Tarts are proof that God exists and wants us to be happy.

[Mr. Sinister]

The pop tart they used to make with the chococolate crust/vanilla filling/vanilla frosting kicked all their asses...

They need to make a rum cake pop tart lol

I'm wondering why I have not received a check in the mail for that rum cake recipe I gave you.

I led you to paradise, and I expect to be compensated for it.

Oh, and a rum cake flavored Pop Tart would be sweet

[PeterMP]

BTW, Toaster Strudels >>>> Pop Tarts

You clearly can't be part of god because you are overly susceptible to suggestive advertising to be part of a higher power.

:pfft:

[alexey]

As it turns out, many philosophers do attempt to ground these (and other similarly esoteric) discussions' probabilities with Bayes' theorem.

That being said, I don't even think you need to go that route, because like in many disciplines, we don't need to use exact numbers in order to talk probabilities.

To move the discussion to something a bit less controversial, historians don't generally talk about certainties because of the limitations of the historical method. Instead, they talk about probabilities.

They might, for instance, say that it is "very probable" that Caesar crossed the Rubicon based on the extant evidence, but you're not usually going to get them to say something like "Oh... it's 92% likely".

In my view, that method cannot cross the line into the supernatural.

For example, by evaluating evidence a historian may say that it is "very probable" that X people came to honestly believe that they saw a ghost. This is because it has been confirmed that people can honestly believe that they saw a ghost. Actual existence of ghosts has not been confirmed. Therefore a discussion about probabilities of these people actually seeing a ghost belongs in a different realm.

Philosophical arguments often work the same way, and I see no reason to treat discussions of God as somehow special and requiring specific numbers. We can say that there probably is a God, or, as one pretty intelligent poster wrote:

That's a statement of probability, without any math that I can find to ground it.

Thank you... and yes I knew this was coming, once I saw that quote brought up from the first page

The full quote actually includes a qualifier:

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.

In light of the super-civil discussion that ensued, I was probably a little harsh with my word selection. By "go with reason" I meant a particular approach of evaluating evidence. I need to think of a good way of describing that approach.

[PeterMP]

No, I don't think so. As I noted, fine tuning is pretty much an accepted fact of Physics. Taking this observed and confirmed data and reasoning from it, even if that might involve some speculation around the edges, is a different animal altogether than proposing as an alternative a theory that fits the facts, but which we have no real reason to believe is so. I mean, a physicist compared it to reincarnation, for Pete's sake (no pun intended)

I believe this is only talking about one possible mechanism by which you can get a multiverse (i.e. the eventual collapse of the current universe and then another big bang like event (e.g. cyclic theories) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe).

I believe most physicists agree that other types of multiverses are not only possible, but likely. For example, I believe many scientists accept a many-worlds interpertation of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) (This is essentially what the NPR link I included in my original response to you was about.).

And others that would deny that would support other theories that would include a multiverse such as M-theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory).

There are a number of theories by which we would get a multiverse. Any one of them some physicist is likely to dislike (and even compare to reencarnation). As a group, I believe it is likely that most physicists will believe in one of them.

A multiverse of some sort to me seems to be the most common solution to the appearant paradoxes that arise from quantum mechanics (and either you end up with a quantum mechanical multiverse or you believe that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed and you want to replace it with another explanation, but those explanation seem to always (all of them to my knowledge), include a multiverse).

The derivation of most of the other multiverse proposals actually arise completely independently of issues related to fine tuning, but issues with things that are suggested by quantum mechanics (as indicated in the NPR link).

That they help us deal with the issue of fine tuning is just a bonus.

[techboy]

In my view, that method cannot cross the line into the supernatural.

Methodological naturalism is part of science, and probably history, but not philosophy, and it is totally unrelated to the use of probability without precise numbers in any case.

[alexey]

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.

I detected a particular recurring thought and its negative effect on my emotional state. I implemented a strategy focused on keeping that thought out of awareness. I don't think this is a big of a deal - people do this stuff all the time.

Some control actions are easier while others are harder... some can be improved with practice. This is especially evident in motor skills. When learning to dance, for example, at first your motor circuits cannot just start firing properly. You practice, and you get better at it. Similar things can be done with non-motor skills as well, such as dealing with emotions. Meditation is another great example.

edit: hehe I originally wrote "Medication is another great example." (with a C)... but yes, actually, medication can give you better control over some mental processes by suppressing some others.

[Ellis]

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?"...

I'm completely talking out of my ass but IMO...

The world cannot have good without bad b/c they each need one another to be compare to.

Without evil, what is good? Without good, what is evil?

Everything needs an opposite.

Chaos - Order.

Good - Bad.

Light - Dark.

Deja vu - Jamais vu.

The existence of both is where perfection can be found. In other words, the opposing forces create an equilibrium, or a steady state, never fully dominating the other completely.

[alexey]

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...

You can still employ rational thought... but you are building on a foundation of faith.

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...

Mine is 4. I don't want to think about these things for another 11 years

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.

Exactly, and since only God knows the real reason, us humans should not try to speculate about it.

[PokerPacker]

I'm completely talking out of my ass but IMO...

The world cannot have good without bad b/c they each need one another to be compare to.

Without evil, what is good? Without good, what is evil?

Everything needs an opposite.

Chaos - Order.

Good - Bad.

Light - Dark.

Deja vu - Jamais vu.

The existence of both is where perfection can be found. In other words, the opposing forces create an equilibrium, or a steady state, never fully dominating the other completely.

I think you've got it mixed up. There is only one spectrum.

[oisn1]

Actually, that seems to me to be exactly what is happening. One quick example: For literally centuries, theists would argue that God created the Universe, and atheists would respond no, it is the universe which is eternal. Well, in the 20th century the Big Bang theory took hold, and it indicates that the Universe came out of literally nothing about 14 billion years ago (i.e. not eternal, and very consistent with a theistic view of creation).

Now obviously, research is ongoing, and perhaps tomorrow that will change, but for right now, it sure seems like the science backs up the theists. Fine tuning seems to be another area where this is true.

I don't think you fully understand the concept of the Big Bang. The Big Bang only refers to the idea that all the matter and anti-matter in the universe was widely spread out and that a relativist hiccup (collisions) lead to the compression of the matter which displaced the matter to anti-matter ratio in a certain area. As relativist speeds and heat increased at the center of the compression, the universe expanded outwards. In fact, the Big Bang does not talk about initial creation or anything before the "Bang", only how our universe evolved afterward due to the Bang itself. Conceptually, whether a God created the matter that would take part in the Big Bang is still up for debate.

A second point that you seem to continually make seems to be distinction of order proving the theistic creation. You confuse order and design. Design includes intention and the intention needs a creator. Order does not need intention. Assuming the universe is not random, then there is something that triggered it. When we observe the cause of that trigger, scientists don't define a design. Observing order does not imply the presence of design. Hell, the presence of design does not even prove the existence of an intelligent creator.

Science backs up the theists? Are you being serious? All science has ever done is compete with theism. God used to be in space above us. Now God is either really far in space or in some other dimension. I'm talking about theism as a whole, as well. Again, it is difficult for me to understand your position. Do you believe science can prove the existence of a theistic god? If so, then you must be aware that then science can disprove specific religions, like the Greek Gods (we understand flooding and how the tides work, and Poseidon is not it).

[alexey]

Methodological naturalism is part of science, and probably history, but not philosophy, and it is totally unrelated to the use of probability without precise numbers in any case.

Anything goes in philosophy, no? In part because there is no standard way of assessing probabilities.

[Ellis]

I think you've got it mixed up. There is only one spectrum.

Caps - Pens.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

.

I led you to paradise, and I expect to be compensated for it.

That's what she said...

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 02:25 PM ----------

You can still employ rational thought... but you are building on a foundation of faith.

No, you build your foundation on reason and logic, and use faith to adhere to it when you want to stray.

Mine is 4. I don't want to think about these things for another 11 years

Mine just turned 18...the last 4 years weren't exactly a picnic in that area lol ...

Exactly, and since only God knows the real reason, us humans should not try to speculate about it.

Why not? Didn't God give us all intelligence, free will and the ability to analyze? I doubt God would create us with these abilities and then insist we not use them. Maybe if we use these facilities with enough intent and long enough and with enough sincere purpose, we will start to understand things even better.

[PeterMP]

I detected a particular recurring thought and its negative effect on my emotional state. I implemented a strategy focused on keeping that thought out of awareness. I don't think this is a big of a deal - people do this stuff all the time.

Some control actions are easier while others are harder... some can be improved with practice. This is especially evident in motor skills. When learning to dance, for example, at first your motor circuits cannot just start firing properly. You practice, and you get better at it. Similar things can be done with non-motor skills as well, such as dealing with emotions. Meditation is another great example.

edit: hehe I originally wrote "Medication is another great example." (with a C)... but yes, actually, medication can give you better control over some mental processes by suppressing some others.

I make the decision to believe in God on a daily basis and so do many other people in this thread.

It isn't that hard if you are going to talk about it like that.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm completely talking out of my ass but IMO...

The world cannot have good without bad b/c they each need one another to be compare to.

Without evil, what is good? Without good, what is evil?

Everything needs an opposite.

Chaos - Order.

Good - Bad.

Light - Dark.

Deja vu - Jamais vu.

The existence of both is where perfection can be found. In other words, the opposing forces create an equilibrium, or a steady state, never fully dominating the other completely.

Nah, you're not talking out of your ass imo...it's a valid philosophical viewpoint and holds a ton of merit.

Another way of looking at it: if there is a God, he designed us humans with an incredible level of intelligence, a huge capacity to love and empathize, etc, etc...well, what good would it do to have these traits and then have no real need to use them? Without adversity in all its forms, we would have very little reason to use these very human aspects of ourselves.

[PeterMP]

In my view, that method cannot cross the line into the supernatural.

For example, by evaluating evidence a historian may say that it is "very probable" that X people came to honestly believe that they saw a ghost. This is because it has been confirmed that people can honestly believe that they saw a ghost. Actual existence of ghosts has not been confirmed. Therefore a discussion about probabilities of these people actually seeing a ghost belongs in a different realm.

Thank you... and yes I knew this was coming, once I saw that quote brought up from the first page

The full quote actually includes a qualifier:

In light of the super-civil discussion that ensued, I was probably a little harsh with my word selection. By "go with reason" I meant a particular approach of evaluating evidence. I need to think of a good way of describing that approach.

alexey, honestly this is one of the worse post I've ever read by a poster that I would generally say I respect.

As near as I can tell, you are essentially saying that you've reached the conclusion that it is likely that god doesn't exist, but in reaching that conclusion I've refused to use methods that would actually allow me to conclude that it is likely that god exists.

If your methods prevent you from ever concluding god exists, then they certainly can't allow you to conclude that god does exists.

[Going Commando]

The world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum.

What might be right for you, may not be right for some.

[SnyderShrugged]

The world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum.

What might be right for you, may not be right for some.

I'd like to buy the world a coke, and keep it company.