Dogmatic Agnosticism w/ Ricky Gervais | Doug Wilson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 мар 2022
- In this episode of Doug Reacts, Pastor Doug Wilson responds to Ricky Gervais's dogmatic agnosticism.
Enjoying this video? Check out Doug's page on Canon+
mycanonplus.com/tabs/discover...
Doug Reacts is an apologetics reaction series presented by Canon Press.
Enjoying this video? Check out Doug's page on Canon+
mycanonplus.com/tabs/discover/pages/douglas-wilson
My coming to God story is proof God exists. I should have been dead at birth. I should have been dead in many accidents. I have had crazy emotional trauma, having one of your best friends murdered and knowing 100% fact he would be here if I was there isnt easy and neither is losing a child, but I bear it and get a little better every day. When the worst things happen to you.. like even stubbing a toe.. Most people will say God wow God how or God why or even God damn. Praise to Him our Lord for every thought I have every chance to make a mistake and every breath to try not to.
@@cliffordhammontree1009 Sounds like you’ve had an ongoing hard time.. I’m sorry. But I’m not sure why this is indicative that God exists! Possibly the opposite?
"Gratitude? To whom? An atheist who feels gratitude is like a man who's all dressed up with nowhere to go. He's got the tux, but no party." - Douglas Wilson
@@aallen5256 oh contraire! Scripture tells us the Lord often discipline those he loves. Hardships are often used as a tool in shaping our character and conforming us to the image of Christ. However, the most compelling argument in favor of God's existence through hardships is that when Adam and Eve fell into sin in the garden of Eden, is when He cursed Adam and He said that the land is cursed because of Adam and that we would eat by the sweat of our brow and that we would work hard for very little and that thorns and thistles would be the crops that our labors would yield. That's just one of many indications in scripture that the world is just as the Lord says it is.
@@taylormurphy5535 I hear your argument for sure, but it gets a bit sticky when a life of hardship and a life of good fortune are equal evidence for the existence of a just God.. do you know what I mean?
I like the Doug Wilson responds series
I like your profile picture. John Knox had a real man's beard.
Yes excellent responses indeed. More!!
@@douglasmcnay644 by what standard, friend?
So true,
@@Jvaldes609 the Canon + app is worth it. I miss the history section though. It used to have a history section
I wonder if Tim Keller will tweet out how Stephen Colbert's Gospel-less and impotent responses to Ricky Gervais is a "brilliant example of how to be a Christian (apologist) in the public square."
I came here to say the same thing. Keller fanboys all over Colbert whereas Wilson is like “Believe it or not Colbert actually made a good point.” It’s a stark contrast.
“Quickness doesn’t pencil out to coherent. If you are quick (like that) you can dazzle the audience and get them to applaud or react but the basic arguments remind hollow”
Thank you!!!
It is knows as sophistry. Hitchens engaged in it to. It does not mean they are wrong though by any means.
Kind of like the quips uttered against Gervais in this video huh.
This is my main means of winning an argument 😂 sometimes I am well aware that my points are hollow or backwards but they sound impressive and I'm too fast so I end up looking good... Thankfully I only do this in silly arguments for fun with friends (about frivolous topics like star wars). In conversations of import I make a concerted effort to not interrupt and to present good arguments.
Hitchens was far from hollow. The problem is trying to use faith and beliefs against facts or factual thinking. You can have faith in the Bible. You can even believe that Noah had two of every animal in a boat. But you can't claim it to be factual. You can have faith and believe it. But there isn't any proof of it. That's why it's called faith
"it's a cute little debating trick, but that's all it is."
Slam dunk!
I just disbelieve in one God less than Ricky. It's such a small jump, so why doesn't he come on over, huh?
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Well it would also be a small jump for a christian to believe in one more of the other many gods as well. Don't think you'd see too many christians making that jump, so that argument doesn't really work does it.
The irony of that statement
@@horrificpleasantry9474 😁
I would categorise myself as a seeking Agnostic. Grew up Catholic, stopped going to church at 13 and declared myself an Atheist. I did not like the feeling of emptiness I had developed. Now at the age of 22 I have started to re gain some level of interest in faith, thanks mainly to Jordan peterson and Jonathan pageau.
Any advice for re learning the basics as I have forgotten most of what I learned as a kid, although in fairness some of it was really not explained well.
Regards, a new subscriber.
there aren't many types of agnostics, this guy made it up to paint ricky as the bad one and set up a straw man, agnosticism is the position of not knowing, everything else added isn't agnosticism, whether you dont know and then conclude one thing or another is irrelevent to agnosticism
Hi Andrew. Did you know that a man called Andrew in the Bible was the first person to be called by Christ to follow him? It's really great to hear about your search for God, and also to see your openness to learn more about him. There's really no better place to start than the Bible itself. Look for a book in the Bible called Matthew; also Proverbs; Genesis; and Romans. Read it. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books. Don't be scared to pray. It means talking to God. The book of Psalms in the Bible will help you to formulate prayers when speaking to God. Everything of the best, and may God bless you as you continue on this journey. Greetings from South Africa.
Biblical Christianity is not only true but transcendentally true, which is to say that it is impossible for it to be false AND any attempt to refute it will be self-refuting. My advice for where to start, if you too ever want to have a strong faith, that isn't in the least bit blind (I'm more reductionist than any atheist you've ever met), I urge you to plunk down $10 on _The Ultimate Proof of Creation_ (2009). It will be a paradigm shift
@@joethomas8640 it's factually obvious to anybody that there are people who are agnostics who behave differently according to the categories he presented. You're proving that now by being the dogmatic type
Incidentally, my favorite books in the bible are Romans, Ecclesiastes and Hebrews for the high intellectual and cynical (toward human nature) or blunt presentation in those books which really clicks with me.
I feel ill after agreeing with Colbert....
Please forgive my stupidity, but how was Colbert right?
@@rexxo4246 I'm not going to take the time to rewatch the video, but I think he made a decent, if limp-wristed, objection to Gervais's atheism.
As a fellow Brit who has heard Gervais repeatedly declared himself an atheist over the years. What struck me was that he folded like a cheap suit when Colbert asked him the " why?" question. He actually tried to soften the blow by retreating to a form of agnosticism.
He has never considered that there is a why. The reason for this is, aside from the deterministic chain of whys, there is no point to imagining an ultimate purpose of the universe. Unless you are religious of course. In Gervais world view it is not something that he ever needed to understand, because e does not believe it exists.
If I asked you "why do fairies kidnap children?" you would flounder equally at first because you are of the opinion that they don't.
@@plantatheist5883 If there is no ultimate purpose of the universe, then there can be no purpose in anything. Ricky Gervais obviously doesn't believe that though, otherwise he wouldn't be acting as though his opinions have meaning or value.
@@owen2688
It is true that there is no ultimate purpose to anything as in"objective" purpose. We are all free to do what we think is interesting and fun. Isn't that liberating?
@@plantatheist5883 Someone's idea of 'interesting and fun' might include killing and eating me. An atheist has no argument against that. I find that rather more frightening than liberating.
@@owen2688 an atheist does have an argument against that lol.
Murder is illegal.
I saw a picture of a black hole years back. Being a Man of Science ™️ at the time I was very excited to see this great new discovery but after seeing the picture itself I was… underwhelmed. It’s hard to explain but something just felt off about the whole thing. My slight disappointment contrasted with the internet’s glee was something I couldn’t shake. I had been pondering Christianity and life’s meaning a the time. Starting to hear stronger arguments for the existence of intelligent design.
I thought about the burning bush and how I mocked the story as silly when I was younger. Now, there’s this fuzzy orange picture that kinda seemed a little silly to me, but was supposed to contain so many answers. But I realized that there’s no wisdom in the path I was going. I could ramble on and on. I’ll just say that I hope I’ve put certain things in context since then.
Prayers for Mr. Gervais.
I am glad you are no longer a "man of science" if your confidence in the scientific method could be shaken by a blurry picture. The scientific community does not need minds like yours, but we do ask that you not stand in the way of future advances.
Peace.
@@plantatheist5883 hey look an insult in place of an argument (and not a very good one either). This must be some new atheist debate tactic. It’s never been seen before. You’re on to some cutting edge stuff young man :)
@@Mr_Fairdale
I'm in my thirties so don't patronise me and don't assume my gender.
I did not mean it as an insult. I genuinely think the scientific community is not best served to include people who quickly abandon their adherence to scientific doctrine as easily as you did.
It was not meant as an "argument" as you had not made one to begin with. If you provide me with an argument in favour of the existence of the super natural and or god I will respond in kind.
Peace.
@@plantatheist5883 if you don't want it assumed, put it in your bio -- ah, but then everyone would know you're in a cult and you wouldn't get away with dishonest debate tactics. SO HONEST, these atheists. Lmao
@@plantatheist5883 your pronouns have no power here mwahahaha
Well the tone of your text reads like someone trying to be edgy and cool and like a 15 year who just read a few pages from End Of Faith and thinks they have it all figured out.
Also, and most importantly, nowhere did I say I don’t believe in the scientific method. I could expound on my first post to make a clearer point but this is a RUclips comment section and the platform isn’t really suitable for that.
I guess my point would be that no matter the time or era in which we live, no matter the technology or media we have available, God’s wisdom will be there. A story of a burning bush might not impact a kid in the 21st century the way Jurassic Park might. But a picture and subsequent explain of a black hole shown to people who live in Ancient Rome might not have the impact many modern people think it should.
You also should know that many, many great scientific minds are also deeply religious. Might be worth looking into.
I do enjoy your channel Doug, thanks...
Correct and right again Douglas, well done Sir.
Amazing video. Thank you.
I was one of those frat boy agnostics please don’t save your breath for a hill. Keep communicating the truth regardless of the subject.
Fantastic video!
Great insight Doug!
The argument about getting rid of all the religious books is ridiculous. If you got rid of all historical knowledge as well, in many years the history would come back different. So the argument just doesn’t work.
'An atheist that feels gratitude is all dressed up with no place to go'.. awesome. 😂
Thank you for the service and huge sacrifice you made in subjecting yourself to watching Colbert and Ricky for our benefit. It's a portion of your life you will never get back, but for the greater good of the flock. Seriously though, thanks for helping us to be able to analyze arguments in order to present others the Truth.
"Thank you for thinking for me". Commonly heard uttered by the faith based weirdly enough. Don't mean to be glib but, wouldn't it be a better exercise to figure this out yourself?
@@plantatheist5883 so edgy, dude. That's definitely what he meant, so you're really refuting Christianity by directly and honestly addressing the actual position, not straw men or anything 👌😂
@@horrificpleasantry9474
No not at all. I was simply pointing out that it is a common practice within the dogmatic Christian society to tell its adherents to simply listen to the message and not think for themselves. The common appeal to authority fallacy.
You cannot refute anything unless evidence has been presented. If anyone wants o present evidence of a god I'd be happy to refute it.
If you want me to clarify anything in any way please let me know. I only say this because you misunderstood my original message.
Peace.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Exodus 21:20-21
@@joethomas8640 care to read the two or three verses just before that, and let me know what you think they're talking about?
This guy said on Twitter "in Dog we trust." That's who he really is.
😢
The assumption that the Bible would not be back in exactly as it is today if every copy was destroyed is predicated on the idea that God does not exist. If God authored the Bible, and chose to reauthor it word for word, He could. More likely that God, in His omnipotence, would simply prevent His work from being destroyed.
That seems like a perfectly valid way to prove the existence of God then, why don't the Christians just do it and end the debate once and for all? (semi-joking of course since it's impossible to completely eradicate any literature in the modern age)
@@Sundablakr Using the continued existence of the Bible as proof that God exists would be a logical fallacy. There are a number of explanations for the Bible to not be eradicated, my point is only that an omnipotent God is one possibility.
😭that’s perfectly put he’s really good and analyzing the way he thinks is so diverse and multitasking. He believes in everything packed into an apartment m and one day something went wrong(mind you it’s so factual scientific and full of evidence but we don’t know what it is and still haven’t figured it out for 2000+ years( and you might want to think why, there’s a reason for that))and everything exploded but you don’t have enough faith to believe in god. Or just tap into learning about it truly and unbiasedly and see how far it gets you.
It's amazing how many celebrities are science experts.
Yes and it would have been good to press Gervais on the point of “how do you know all the science textbooks would come back”
Thank you for the trigger warning. I will admit it’s odd to see Colbert making sense. This must have aired before his dancing-with-syringes phase. 😐
By their self-deceived arrogance you will known them. Always trying to protect their egoes.
To claim something can’t be known can only be made if you already know everything. Extremely Arrogant argument… I don’t know, therefore NO ONE can know. 😂
Just because one person claims that Bible is true and another that the Karan is true doesn’t mean they are both false. It’s just means someone is wrong.
Exactly. Something can not be A and non A at the same time. It is either A or non A. So, as the Bible and the koran state different positions on things only means examine both to find the one that holds truth or reject both if you examine both and find they are both false. But, they can not both be true.
@@buckyoung4578 A is true therefore A is true. Wow, you just changed my whole perspective on everything.
'atheism agnosticism' is a thing. I am an agnostic atheist...meaning i dont know whether god exist or not (thats the agnostic part) but i also don't believe he exists at the current time because i haven't seen sufficient evidence (that's the atheist part)
We need to move on from this old idea that agnostics and atheists are two incompatible things.
Well you have seen evidence, you just don't interpret it correctly because you have the wrong worldview. That is the level where the debate needs to be held
@@horrificpleasantry9474 yes and you have seen evidence of the Quran and Mohammed being the true prophet of God.....but your just not interpreting how I think you should be
See how easy that is to do...... just claim the evidence is already there and if you just simply observed it with a mindset similiar to me youd see that I was indeed correct.
Please try again and put a bit of effort into it next time.....
@@brianbridges8124 The Quran is demonstrably false on its own merits, as it appropriates Biblical figures and alters what we know they already said from commentaries from 300+ years prior to Muhammad.
@@dave1370 The quran is false because it posits supernatural invisible beings that can create universes with the wave of a hand, the same reason the bible goes against everything we know about demonstrable reality. Plagiarism is the last reason that i would accuse the quran of being false.......
It's the magical all powerful superhero that can do anything that raises eyebrows......
I like to show how logical positivism is self defeating as their definition excludes their definition "The main ideas of logical positivism are the insistence that all views must be verifiable through experiment or observation, and that all arguments must have a clear logical structure. Consequently, Logical Positivism rejects metaphysical doctrines." Logical positivism is a metaphysical doctrine about which can be known.
This could be too painful to watch, as these two sociopaths are so utterly profane.
Everything is better with Doug
Direction is infinitely more important than speed Ricky
Is the guy making sense starting to watch Living Water's Ray Comfort's RUclips Channel?
Nice distinctions for agnosticism, I hadn’t thought of it that way before.
Yeah it does not it the dictionary definition, but sure. Nice...
yh he makes it up to set up a straw man and attack a point i dont think ricky's ever made
Wow the way he things “it can’t be a tiny step this way and a huge that way””a grateful atheist is all dressed up with no where to go, he was the suit but no party”
Might I add a fourth category of agnostic? Those who say, "I don't know and I don't want to know". Close to "I don't care", but distinct in it's volitional ignorance.
Yes!
I like 👍 these responses from big Brother
What concerns me is the audience, how many are like them?
I would consider myself an agnostic seeker by your definition, I want to know and I wish I did. I may have devoted my life to studying the world according to the scientific method, but that doesn't mean my mind is closed to the idea of a creator (whatever form that might take), I just prefer to seek answers than blindly believe. I followed the Christian faith for about 15 years whilst I was growing up, attended church with my family and everything, but I left that by the wayside when nobody could answer my questions and I started to doubt. It's hard to have faith when you don't truly believe no matter how much you try.
What were/are your questions?
The biggest piece of skepticism I find in this video is the idea that Stephen Colbert is a Christian.
After every cute little remark and supposedly awesome authority I'd ask Colbert: "Ok now where's your evidence?"
"Show you gravity no, you show me Thor?"
I'm not sure why you're a bit cross with Colbert here. Rhetoric and humor are two of the most prominent weapons in the New Atheist toolbox. Skeptics have been using and abusing humor against religious people and other believers in the supernatural for years now. Don't get upset when that gets turned around on them and they're left looking silly.
He could get a chuckle out of Sam Harris but a more intellectual atheist like Graham Oppy will kick him to the kerb and talk to a Christian who does not take a childish approach to such serious and a more profoundly important a topic such as this one.
Doug you got owned!!!
I believe you can pull a cart on wheels that have a potential 3000 different shapes, each that subsequently is not perfectly round, but one is perfectly round. I choose Christianity like I choose the perfectly round wheel design
1) The actual definition of agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
There aren't really 3 kinds of agnostic you've just strawmaned 3 types of your own definition in relation to your apologetics motive for conversion.
The "revealing himself" argument is also not evidence, it's just a claim that a person makes. I will now make a similar claim, "Loki just revealed himself to me." ... not evidence, therefore not knowable.
2) The not believing in the #2999 to #3000 god argument. You're understanding of his core statement is about evidence to substantiate belief, not in the "ease or triviality" of moving from one to another or to none. He literally states, "Can you prove that? No. Then I don't believe you." The secondary implication of the numbers is far more important. Over the course of human history, our ancestors believed in and eventually discarded other gods. There is nothing special about gods worshiped today. The same fate awaits those also. We all think we're the exception but history proves you wrong.
3) Gratitude. That word was used by Colbert as a leading statement of his Catholic faith. What is telling that your position is that you can't appreciate life, love, and good fortune without having faith in God? What about Hindu's they don't have the same god, is their gratitude false? How about the Shinto believers of Japan. Or the spiritual beliefs of the Native Americans? Atheists do feel the entire range of emotions as all the other Homosapiens, they simply don't need to assign their cause to a supernatural being.
4) Cosmology. The poor term, "big bang" is grossly misunderstood my most people. There is currently no way to know "how scrunched up" all the matter and energy of the universe was. But there is ample evidence of cosmic inflation (the correct term) with actual direct observational evidence.
5) Again you take to absurd lengths the statement of return of scientific truths. The atomic weight of hydrogen will come back because it was discovered through science. Failed scientific ideas were overturned by other scientists. That is exactly the whole point of it, it is designed to be error-correcting. Bad ideas in religions are forever. In the hard sciences, those components of knowledge would absolutely return because they describe our physical reality and allow us to predict within it. This is why bridges stand up, chemical reaction products are predictable, why your video camera works, why your car rolls down the road, and why airplanes don't fall out of the sky.
6) I assume the "show me gravity" part was a joke, therefore no comment.
Anyway, That was fun.
Have a great day.
I could have written something similar 15 years ago, when I was an equally proud and ignorant atheist - I assume you are atheist and not an agnostic by the tone of your comment, I might be wrong though. I'd urge you to study more seriously, most of your points are extremely flawed and show no understanding of the subject. Been there, you are not alone.
Christians won't read this, it makes too much sense.
(Before anyone gets offended, that's just me being tongue in cheek)
It was a joke but it was a valid reductio ad absurdum of the typical dumbness atheists think is so profound "show me God"
@@vaderetro264 Ateism and agnosticism are not two different positions on Gods existence. 'atheism agnosticism' is a thing. I am an agnostic atheist...meaning i dont know whether god exist or not (thats the agnostic part) but i also don't believe he exists at the current time because i haven't seen sufficient evidence (that's the atheist part)
We need to move on from this old idea that agnostics and atheists are two incompatible things.
The sceptic in me is really curious why Steven is defending the faith? 🤔
Colbert says he is a practicing Catholic.
Stephen and his wife are practising Catholic. He also had a video where he went a little harsh on Sam Harris wen he disrespected.
we have to assume knowledge is possible to start with, which if there is a God makes sense, if we are products of 'stupid design' then knowledge seems more like a belief or educated guess
I'm persuaded by Christopher Hitchens's argument that says, if there is a God-- he's sure going out of his way to hide it." I mean, I get the 'morality' piece of Christianity. It's important that we show love and compassion for one another; that we seek forgiveness and forgive; and that we have gratitude for all that we have. But what bothers me is the 'faith' part. Why is it that we're put to the test in such a self-entrapping way? And if that is part of God's will... it's an awfully cruel way to go about it. What I mean is that 'Truth' seems to be at the center of Christianity. In fact, I would argue that Christianity is the worship of Truth-- in so far as Jesus claimed to be the human incarnation of truth, itself. But therein lies the quandary. Jesus was born of a virgin. He walked on water; he cured the blind with mud and spit; he rose from the dead. In any other context-- these claims would rightfully be dismissed as patently obvious lies. And yet, in this one historical case, from which we have zero first-hand account nor physical evidence... we're told to suspend reality and just have faith. In other words... we need to disregard our understanding of truth in order to arrive at the truth. Well, this is and awfully tall order. In fact, it's just too much an for average-brained Homo Erectus like me to synthesize. It's like a parlor trick or riddle that no-one can solve-- like, "How do I get this quarter in the jar without touching either." And worse, refuse to play the game at your eternal soul's peril. No, there's cruelty in that arrangement-- and the fingerprints look more like man's need to control rather than God's need to love. So that's my continued struggle. If God wants us to be moral creatures-- which, given our nature is hard enough... then why not tell us in a way that's clear and unmistakable? Why the head games? Why the mystery? Why the room for reasonable doubt? Do you want me to be a kind, loving, forgiving and grateful person... or do you want me to be a brilliant and perfectly timed gambler who's able to buy-into the one story where all knowledge of science, logic, and reality needs to be thrown out the window? Because those two 'asks' are worlds apart and have no interlocking concurrence that I can decipher. Quit saying you want me to graduate and then giving me the most difficult and confusing final exam ever constructed.
Question, why the hatred for science? Why does knowledge always seem to provoke defensive replies?
I guess the next question would be, how do you know that God has revealed himself to another person? 🤔
6:00
X:Kuziva you don't have a father
Kuziva: I do, you've just never met him.
X: Well I don't believe you do. We're really close to each other because out of all the 4 billion men in the world I believe none of them is your father. You believe one of them is your father, one less man and we're the same
Kuziva: Well that's how it works, I can only have one father. Not believing that some other men are my father does not make me someone that believes it's possible to not have a father
Pretty good and concise
This isn't even remotely analogous 🤣
How is this similar to the god hypothesis? A better analogy would be:
x: I believe in big foot.
y: Do you also believe that pixies exist?
x: No pixies are nonsense.
y: What about the hundreds of folkloric and mythological creatures besides the big foot that people believe in?
x: No just big foot. All those other people are crazy.
See the analogy you used uses something that actually does exist (fathers). It is in fact a bigger stretch to imagine someone who does not have a father than the opposite. We have all had a father, at least in the biological sense and so we are given evidence to support this relationship all around us.
If you have never had the experience of a god.
Someone comes up to you and says that there is a god and provides no further proof.
What reasons do you have for believing him?
The same reason you have for accepting: Pachacamac, Thor, Vishnu or Apollo as your lord and saviour.
This is the point Gervais is making. All gods are equally substantiated. You as a Christian only believe in one unproven deity more than an Atheist.
Peace.
@@plantatheist5883 I guess to set it up I'd say that X in my analogy is a person that also believes they have no father and grew up without one, so they assume that I too have no father and use the fact that they have never seen my father as evidence of it. But the fact that I'm here means I have a father just as the world being here is the evidence of God. You say my analogy isn't as helpful because I use something that "actually" exists meaning your assumption or at least you want the assumption to be that God doesn't exist. Well I didn't make that assumption because God does exist. And it's just as silly to say you reject all other gods so you're an atheist when it comes to other gods as it is to say you don't believe in fathers because you would reject the claim of any other man to be your father. As a Christian I don't believe in a mystical world where there are many gods, I believe that this world was created by one God, namely the Trinitarian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who Jesus Christ of Nazareth was.
@@kuzivaj.z
"But the fact that I'm here means I have a father just as the world being here is the evidence of God."
This is a faulty analogy. Again prove that this is the case or stop repeating the fallacy.
I was saying that just like you lack sufficient evidence for the existence of all other potential gods, so do I lack sufficient evidence for ANY god. If you were to provide me with irrefutable evidence that god exists I would change my mind.
I have changed my mind countless times because of new information/evidence.
No one has as yet been able to conclusively prove the existence of god, so I continue living my life without god as an assumption. Just as I go through life not believing pixies, goblins or Harry Potter exist.
Again: I'm not looking for rhetoric or sophistry. I require proof and I would welcome it.
Just found you, absolutely fascinating. I’m Catholic and my Husband is agnostic. We don’t argue about God. He lost his Mom and Dad and Sister before he turned 50. My faith has carried him. He actually lives a Catholic life and doesn’t know it. I always thought it was a funny little joke, between God and me.
Tricking someone you love into a religion. Sounds catholic to me...
@@plantatheist5883 You seem to be assuming her husband is unable to think for himself. Proper Christians (Catholics or otherwise) are supposed to defend their faith when necessary and lead by example, so she's doing nothing wrong.
@@vaderetro264 She said "He does not know it". Read the original comment if it helps.
@@plantatheist5883 He doesn't know he lives a Catholic life, just like millions of other people who are not Christians but have been brought up in a culture based mostly on Christian values, and so take those teachings for granted. Read carefully...
@@vaderetro264
Isn't one of the basics of living a "catholic life" to believe in god? How can an agnostic do that?
The original comment made it seem like her husband is an agnostic, but she is doing what she can to make sure her faith "carries him".
I doubt an agnostic would engage in catholic service or any overtly catholic behaviour.
This does not mean that only Catholics can give to charity, remember the sabbath and condemn homosexuals to death. Agnostics can do this to, although it would not be related to their agnosticism. Unlike in the case with Catholics.
Peace.
You have the sacred text? Many religions claim to have sacred things. Do you believe these also?
What is the proof of your sacred text being from a true god?
if you really wanna know, google " the impossible faith tektonics " and be prepared to read a few thousand words
Was not this full of it, nothing was.
Oh crap..... Colbert did ok. Has a stranger thing happened?
Him fooling people into thinking he was conservative (and funny) when he played a parody of one for Jon Stewart
I catechism my children with..' Today's science is tomorrow's voodoo'
Not sure if you are saying that with a straight face, obscured by 3 cloth masks... Dr Walensky explains cloth makes are unreliable she blinded me with Science!
@@Michael-hs6ii Found the right wing, anti vaxx, anti science troll.
@@plantatheist5883 there’s definitely more than one
@@aallen5256
I honestly think this is one of their main sources of religious talking points.
Nice concise format without any need for intellectual legwork.
He has just not been called by God and sadly may never be called and I feel awful about that.
The inanity of this statement is palpable.
Of the 3000, for some reason, only One seems to garner the most negative attention. Tall trees catch the most wind is the saying in my country. For instance, them using the Lord's Name in vane, is them admitting who God is without realizing it.
Which god do you think garners the most negative attention?? Allah gets a pretty bad press in the west!
Ricky Garvais is great at everything else, he should leave faith conversations to the minimum.
Yeah you are right. He does not have the best grasp on science or Atheism. I would leave the debating to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dillahunty, Alex O'Connor and others.
I find agnosticism the most honest of non-Christian positions.
And I think Steven Colbert knows better than a lot of things he says, but he says what he's paid to.
Doenning Krueger effect.
I don’t think you shouldn’t care about the people that don’t care there’s people living testimony that didn’t care and later on in life that spoken word came back and they dove into truth which is God
On the theist view, why would there be a god rather than nothing?
Because what we can see in the material world does not possess self existence
@@horrificpleasantry9474
For one thing, why are you talking about the material world when I asked about a god versus nothingness?
For another, we don't fully understand the 'material world' yet, so how can you claim to know what does or doesn't possess 'self existence' whatever that might be?! We _do_ observe energy can't be created or destroyed, so perhaps *that* actually must necessarily exist. I don't claim to know.
@@mattsmith1440 you were so vague and broad that you don't get to complain about how someone answers you. Secondly, the argument from silence is a logical FALLACY. Atheists are so irrational
@@horrificpleasantry9474
That post doesn't address anything I said in the first post nor the second. Have another crack at it though buddy:
On theism, why would there be a god rather than nothing?
If you can't speak, don't speak
Ex Nihilo Nihil fit.
He used a false premise. In a Christian worldview, the Bible's existence is not like other books. It's a false scenario / equivalence because in a universe where the Bible exists, it would never be destroyed in the way he's describing. It is not a sufficient argument, because the two ideas are not comparable without dismissing the context surrounding the Bible. I had the exact thought in high-school, that if all knowledge was lost, then only those things that could be rediscovered must be true. But if God exists, and allowed all knowledge to be destroyed, he absolutely could give man the scriptures again. It's a bogus thought experiment
Ricky, IMO is correct on the fact that no one can know. Many believe that there is, but believing in a God and having proof of that God is two different things. It's ok to have faith. I'm not saying you shouldn't I'm just saying that faith in it and definitively knowing isn't the same. It's only a cute little debating trick if you can't refute what he's saying. And by doing that is just arrogance overriding common sense
Piltdown Man and the extinction of the coelacanth are just two embarrassing examples of scientific consensus that were one held to be undeniable. Wish Colbert had brought this up to Ricky.
Coelacanth isn’t mentioned enough. Look up “living fossils”. Hundreds of creatures that they once claimed died out millions of years ago.
And what corrected those egregious errors? Was it religion, any other superstition, pseudoscience, or woo?
Or was it MORE and BETTER science? 🤔
No they aren't examples of 'scientific consensus'. And what's a scientific consensus got to do with the existence of gods?
Yep , Scientism has a history of errors .
@@mattsmith1440 It has everything to do what that clown was claiming about Scientism.
As a former Roman Catholic now Conflicted Agnostic I feel like I'm bridging the gap between Atheism and Christianity with one foot on opposite ledges. Between the Churches distorted view of God's love and Atheist's smugness about the inanity of life it becomes all so tiresome.
ruclips.net/video/Hid7fDW1hq8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/-4AmwAhGaH8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ksu-zTG9HHg/видео.html
I just sent you a few links to perhaps give you some inspiration and encouragement. Please check out each one.
@@taylormurphy5535 What links?
Did Darwin indeed imply that some human races are inferior to others? I didn’t think so?
Yes the aboriginals of Australia were one example of his, IIRC
Boom
The scary thing is their are men who profess and hold doctorates as pastors who use the same beguiling tactics of speech as Ricky Gervais…and you know how the rest of that goes.
Broad, unsupported or evidential statements like yours are empty dodges! You don't want to face the fact that nothing comes from nothing. So, for there to be something that HAS to be a prime mover, creator, initial source of the universe which is GOD! This FACT moved Einstein, you know the world's smartest man, to become a believer in GOD!
@@buckyoung4578 ummmmm..I’m a born again christian.
@@buckyoung4578 A god , not the God of the bible
I don't just believe there is a God, I **know** He is. I know that He loves me. I know that He knows me, personally. He knows my name. There's **nothing** anyone can say or do that will ever prove otherwise to me. Period. Jesus is Lord and apart from Him this world has **no hope** .
When you meet someone and speak with someone and feel their presence, it's hard for someone to convince you they don't exist
@@hakujyan But if someone never meets or speaks with the person you’ve met and spoken with, and you can’t produce any evidence of that person, let alone the person themselves, you can understand why someone might not believe that person exists, right?
Lol. You remind me of my favorite line from my favorite show. It’s always Sunny in Philadelphia.
“I won’t ever change my mind. Regardless of the facts. Regardless of the evidence. I don’t have to. Because I’m an American.” -Mac
😂😂
What an utterly unscientific way to walk through life. I would, if given sufficient evidence, change my mind on any subject. Even that of god.
Sure but do you *know* your god in the same way that you *know* either of your parents, or literally any human being you interact with on a daily basis?
"I just believe in one less god than you" ignores the supremacy of YHWY shown in scripture. Num 33:4 comes to mind. Dt 32:8. Ps 89:5-7.
Ur quoting the bible again
And I'm not saying that to be funny it's just the whole book would irrelevant to an atheist bcuz it was written by man and not God himself but as a Christian would say it was inspired by God but still written by man
@@tye9713 Because , clown .
@@tye9713 What of it .
Yehweh is a desert god .
He wasn't saying all the discredited and wrong science information would come back. He's saying all of the TRUTHS would come back exactly the same. Incredibly ignorant, blatant cop-out on your part. But I'm not surprised.
8:22 Science is also disproven all the time, too!
That's not really true. What Ricky is talking about are the fundamental physical laws of the universe, which are always the same no matter what. Some scientific theories have definitely been disproven or changed over time yes, because we develop better techniques to test for them and our technology improves and our understanding improves. We are both typing these comments on devices that are not possible without such advances in quantum physics.
The problem is you can't test for God, and to a lot of people that makes God irrelevant.
As scientists we don't have all the answers, far from it. But we devote our lives to understanding the universe and how we came to be in it, and over the last few hundred years we have improved humanity from living in dirt and dying from every random disease on the planet, to the living standards we enjoy today, from modern medicine, to the internet, to space exploration. We have literally built humanity up from cavemen to explorers of the cosmos on the backs of scientific theory. We've even created a global network for you to debate your religions on with people on the other side of the planet in the blink of an eye. We're doing our best, I think that's just fine.
@@Sundablakr I think you misunderstood my statement. I am saying things we have "known" in the scientific realm are always being disproven. Scientists used to think the earth was flat. Scientists used to think disease was caused by bad air. Science used to hold the geo centric view of the universe. The 4 humors were seen as science... even medicine. Pluto used to be a planet. Science is disproven all the time.
But that is the point of science, to keep searching for knowledge and truth. Even if that means disproving conventional wisdom.
I don't have the slightest problem with anyone saying they believe in God. But I have a huge problem with the kind of believer I've encountered most in my life....who have this sickeningly smug attitude of not believing but knowing; condescendingly they like to pity everyone who says "I don't believe in God" and even lecture and patronize them. Then they unconsciously do the most inhuman things and unscrupulously wash away their dirt once a week by going to church.
Fewer people make me laugh harder than Ricky Gervais. I genuinely pray he stops suppressing the truth and turns to Christ.
Out of the two, who has a history of suppressing truth: Christians or Atheists? The earth being round, the earth orbiting the sun, our solar system not being the centre of the universe, the universe being infinite etc.
@@plantatheist5883 Back up that statement with facts not second third and fourth hand information.
He'll be given over to a reprobate mind if not already then it's clearly too late .
@@patprr1756 In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo, one of the founders of modern science, to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. He recanted under threat of torture from what was then, and is still today, the largest branch of Christianity.
@@aallen5256 One the Catholic Church is anything but Christian , it is the world's largest cult , two you need to to study history the galileo case is not as straght forward as you been taught , in the end you owe your very science and modern society to Christianity and the bible , atheism has contributed absolutely nothing apart from the fairytale of evolutionism
Colbert only sounds convincing and is saying ‘the right things’ because he is the king of parody. He’s parroting points to give his guest something to bounce off off.
In regards to prayer, no one really believes that prayer actually works, every theist I have met just go to a doctor for a medical opinion and yes of course some medication...unless you know a few people that just rely on prayer? There are about 200 million theists of some description in the US alone, do some actual home and let me know how many rely on prayer and how many rely on JUST science...kind regards to you.
Any discussion about God should start first and foremost by : "what is your definition of God?" and start from there. Most atheists are talking about the "man sitting on a cloud" God.
Isn’t the definition of god omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?
@Caleb P Certainly not he Christian one.
While I agree with you, that's the one described in the Bible.
He eats with people, walks with people, haggles with people, has a backside and a face, has a throne on the highest heaven, etc. That's how the Hebrew people initially viewed Yahweh.
@@DM-dk7js The words omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent are not obvious at all and have different meanings depending on which religion you are considering, and even depending on which Christian denomination or theologian we are talking about.
@@whatwecalllife7034 "initially" - no. God was understood to be invisible and omnipresent and omnipotent from the beginning. This understanding is throughout the old testament, but most obviously in the psalms. David had a high theology
"Trust the Science". Hmmmm......
Why am I agreeing with colbert?
" Why am I agreeing with colbert?"
Because you don't want to agree with Gervais
The Bible is not a science book its an article or revelation it’s more plausible it would come back before the science would all you would need is God revealing it again.
I love when people use that "I just go one god further" bit because it's so nonsensical and moronic.
It's like saying "you're a bachelor like me, you're just married to one more woman than I am."
Or "you're a bachelor because you're not married to any of the other billions of women on Earth."
Or "you can't believe in real money because counterfeits exist."
This could go on forever. It's just nonsense.
It’s not nonsensical at all. It makes perfect sense. What are you confused about?
There are dozens perhaps thousands of “gods” that you don’t accept or believe in. The atheist just goes on further-they include your god too.
It’s not confusing.
@@DM-dk7js There are thousands of false religions in the world, including atheism. The Christian just believes in one less false religion than the atheist. Besides, if it's such a small leap, then make the leap to faith, because we JUST believe in one more God, right? It can't be a massive difference one way and an insignificant difference the other way. That's what Doug said in the video and you're dishonest for not acknowledging it and once again here you are trying to lead people astray
@@horrificpleasantry9474 atheism isn’t a religion.
You’re a clown lol.
Just because you don't use the Yuan as currency doesn't mean the Dollar is all there is.
Colbert didn't say anything.........And Gervais wasn't arguing in the 1700's.....Gervais made more sense if you watch it without a religious bias.........
This was such a weak debate from both sides. The arguments were weak and the presentation of the arguments even weaker.
You replied to the science scenario but I noticed that you didn't even acknowledge that same scenario on religion. There's a reason why you didn't. If you had, you would have proven him correct. Because you know that if the Bible and all knowledge of Christianity was lost, it would never be back.
Doug my man. We could really get along
Yeah and thor
Imagine letting your belief in god blind you to common sense. You dont even try to take him up on his arguments, you find 1 little thing that he says and find a way that you can manipulate what he said to be untrue. Smh
Gnostic Agnostic.
You really didn't answer or refute his statement on if all science works and books were lost, at some point in the future those same facts would be known again. But if you did the same with the Bible and Christian teachings, they wouldn't be back in the future. Because they aren't fact. Saying do you know how many science theories have been proven wrong is just a sidestep or even a dishonest reply to it. I'll repeat again that I think religion is probably good for many people. As long as it stays as a personal relationship and not involved with government in any way
The fool has said…
We should all pray for Ricky Gervais, that he softens his heart to the idea of God so that when he sees God he will believe. I think he has a very stubborn way of thinking, like a lot of us, and this would impact his ability to even open his heart to the idea of God (even though he says hes agnostic).
It’s the opposite of stubbornness. There’s no evidence god exists. So it would be stubborn to believe he does exist.
The problem of God is also the competing revelations. If you were born in Kentucky your revelation would be evangelical Christianity, if you were born in Bombay the revelation is Hinduism. It's kinda an archaic idea that some people were special and got the true revelation, while other people weren't that special, and got the wrong revelation.
Well, maybe.... raise a body from the dead, with an inordinate amount of historical documentation, and followers immediately after the resurrection suffer horrible painful shameful death with no record of recanting, we can talk.
@@physchir But that still didn't solve the problem of universal revelation. Imagine how many generations of American Indians died until Columbus reached America with Christianity, were those people just unlucky?
Absolutely wrong. The fastest growing area of Christianity today is China which has no history of Christianity to speak of. And, it is restricted and opposed by the government. The Holy Spirit is moving in a godless society. There are Christians all over the world in every culture and in every race, established belief system by culture.
@@buckyoung4578 My argument is what happened to the generations of people before the gospel reached that land. Archeologists say that native Indians have been in the Americas for at least 10,000 years. What happened to the generations that past before 1494 when Columbus set foot on the shore? Were they not special enough to get the true revelation?
Why can he trust the consistency of science? Who's upholding science? Science?
Evidence upholds science, and the repeatability of that evidence.
At least Ricky is being honest about the most important question to ask. Colbert is lying about believing in God.
" The fool has said in his heart there is no God " , that's the truth .
If an atheist went into the wilderness alone with no food, would he survive as long as someone (in the same situation) who believes in God? My gut tells me no.
Probably longer. They wouldn’t pray and hope they make it. They’d take action.
@@DM-dk7js I think after starving for a week or two the atheist would start praying.
@@jharvey5540 projection on your part.
You’d be praying for a meal. I’d be hunting and gathering.
Probably longer cause God would give him grace to repent, but the Christian would be absent from the body and present with the Lord, and also probably praying for a quick death
This has been sadly proven by those who went into the Nazi death camps that weren't immediately murdered. Those that went to work as slave laborers has a very low survival rate. Those that did survive ALL said that their faith is what kept them alive. Read Eric Fromm's book on this.
I dont think that he thinks there isnt a god. I think hes scared that there might be.
He looks incredibly scared to me...
@@plantatheist5883 he fears judgment, so he denies the existence of the judge. atheism is a cowards cloak.
@@viridisxiv766 Nice sophistry my friend. Try an actual argument and I will respong in kind.
@@plantatheist5883 *respond.
@@viridisxiv766
Nice. I guess the argument you used can be thrown back in your face. "He fears the finality of death, so he denies it. Christianity is a cowards cloak".
Also since you welcome textual criticism. In English it is considered idiomatic to capitalise the first letter of every sentence. You might want to work on that:)
Steven Colbert is not the best representative of Christ, he’s pretty progressive. This seems more like a platform for Ricky to slap around believers.
He's not a representative...
@@horrificpleasantry9474 I don’t think so either. He did mention the triune God. I think he claims to be Catholic if I’m not mistaken.
Neither is Gervais a representative of Atheism. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins - These are eminent Atheists who could form convincing arguments for why there is not reason to believe in the Christian mythology over any other. weird how Doug picks such low hanging fruit. Again and again and again.
@@plantatheist5883 he's criticized both, and neither of them are as otherworldly as you portray them
@@plantatheist5883 He is an atheist denouncing God on National television- wether you would categorize him that way or not- he is representing Atheists.
You can try to bait Gervais all you like but there is no proof of any god-period.
no god so there is no revealing. wilson invents a "revealing"
I’m afraid that Colbert was making no more sense than any other theist, and that includes the person posting this video.
On the science question. No the books would not necessarily be back, but the theories that are supported by evidence would be back. There is no reason to think any of the religions we see today would be back. However the early forms of religion, such as sun worship, belief that lightening is supernatural etc., would return. When we don’t understand something we create an answer, it does not have to be correct, it just has to appear to fill the vacuum of ignorance.
Theist is the ONLY scientifically proven and logic reason for the universe and all within it. Penzias, Wilson, Hubble, Einstein-the four greatest scientist and thinkers of modern time ALL converted to Theism or Christianity because God is provable while "man as god" nonsense is only sad ego.
@@buckyoung4578
Theism has never been close to being proven in any way shape or form and is the antithesis of science and logic.
Why does the universe require a reason? It might help if you defined what you meant by “reason” here.
Hubble and Einstein were agnostic , Penzias appears to have a Christian based belief, Wilson I couldn’t be bothered to check so I will take your word for it. So what? Newton believed in Alchemy. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fake fairy photos. People can be wrong about things, which is why we rely on demonstrable facts not unsupported statements from eminent people, no matter how eminent they are.
God has never been proved and it appears, never can be. Many people have and are trying to do so. No-one has succeeded
I do agree with one thing you wrote: “man as god” is nonsense. There is evidence that man exists, there is no credible evidence that any god exists so how can something existing be non-existing? As you say, nonsense.
Now, if you think you have some credible evidence for some god, please share it. Just try to make it something that has not been debunked time and time again, although I am not hopeful on that last point.