Gervais is an atheist. In an interview given to John Humphrys he said, "Being an atheist makes someone a clearer thinking, fairer person. . . . They (atheists) are not doing things to be rewarded in heaven; they're doing things because they're right, because they live by a moral code."
He also added that, although he doesn't believe, God , (if he exists), would like him.
He also added that, although he doesn't believe, God , (if he exists), would like him.
Ricky Gervais - The Bible
~*~
(Sit back and have a laugh if you haven't seen this yet.)
bible , creation , creationism , atheist , christianity , god , ricky+gervais , comedy , adam+and+eve
bible , creation , creationism , atheist , christianity , god , ricky+gervais , comedy , adam+and+eve
~*~
"What I do have an interest in is the notion that the ancient mythology of the Jews should be the standard against which claims in modern science should be judged. To me, that is just plain stupid. Yes, that's right; I find it stupid to believe that the God of the ancient Jews dictated science lessons to Moses or other chosen ones." - Dr. Robert T. Carroll
It doesn't come much better than that...:)
ReplyDeleteAs to Dr. Carroll, he's dead right of course. Miralce's ain't science...
What a great time, Beep! So funny and so clear... btw, talking about miracles, I'd just made a Question in SINCRONIAconCIENCIA.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteHow to call those moments when life appear by the very first time? or/and intelligence as well?
You know, many call them MIRACLES... This are amazing evolving circumstances, yet not fully explained, don't you think? And How did you found the conferences Beyond Believe?
the Best
RE ted:
ReplyDeleteYeah, Gervais is pretty funny sometimes. I am going to post his comedic take on homosexuality as well. In it he basically discusses how homosexuality is natural, but in a comedic way.
Re sincronia:
ReplyDeleteLong time no see. :)
I haven't watched all the videos from "Beyond Belief" yet. But I am sure they are all interesting.
The attribution of something as a "miracle" is an interesting one too. My first reaction is to say that we attribute something as being a miracle according to whether the occurrence of said something, is outside our concept of probability.
So, someone who has a low threshold of probability might think that it was a miracle that a person survived a stupendous and catastrophic plane disaster.
Whereas, I might consider it a miracle if EVERYONE survived a stupendous and catastrophic plane disaster.
One person surviving would be within the bounds of what I would consider probable. EVERYONE surviving, probably would not.
A most interesting site!
ReplyDeleteWill have to come back and read more, Thanks!!!
Cheers from the US ; )
Classic Gervais, I love this bit. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to it Beep. The "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" one is a scream...:)
ReplyDeleteHey beepbeep,
ReplyDeleteHere's an article debunking Naturalism and supporting the existence of Mind independent of Nature. It has some pretty solid logic so I thought you might want to take a look. Tell me what you think.
Matt
oops! I didn't give you the link...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Intro/csl3.html
How do you debunk the natural world? Close your eyes and pretend it isn't there? Or pretend that you will it inot existence?
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot, the natural world is just a mirage that god allows us to see....
A religious article written in 1947? Gimmie a break..
ReplyDeleteHey wolvie :) Long time no see.
ReplyDeleteYou might find the Gervais clip about homosexuality funny as well.
hmm, i said debuking Naturalism, not the natural world...it's one thing not to read, another to misunderstand it and quite another to misrepresent it...but thanks anyways.
ReplyDeleteMatt
RE matt:
ReplyDeleteNaturalism is based on an understanding of the natural world.
"Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
matt:
ReplyDeleteI'll weigh in on C.S. Lewis' slight of hand on trying to disaffirm naturalism. His logic is abyssmal, and he makes many unfounded assertions buried within terribly obtuse and verbose language (e.g. "it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses (via evolution) could ever turn them into acts of insight" without providing any reason why insight could not evolve). He also moans that, since Naturalists do not posit any claim to absolute truth, then there must be other sources for absolute truth. Indeed, he says that the Theist's position is not as outrageous as the Naturalist's, because the Naturalist posits that the supernatural does not exist. However, he ignores that the Theist affirms that not only does the supernatural exist (having no reliable evidence for such), but often that he has a good idea of the characteristics of the supernatural are. Additionally, Lewis ignores the idea that, once the supernatural interacts with the natural in a way that can be perceived, it can then be measured and ceases to be supernatural, thus affirming the Naturalist's position.
RE: shygetz
ReplyDeleteI don't get the fuss that theists have with naturalism. They agree that the natural world exists, but their only issue with it is that it didn't come about through "natural forces" but through supernatural ones.
And they go on to try and doubt the existence of the natural world, in preference to a belief in a world they cannot see, measure, quantify or observe.
The belief in supernaturalism, depreciates and devalues the natural world, as there is always the "supernatural world" to go to once we have stuffed this one up enough..