A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist

[ZombieHorde]

By Ricky Gervais

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith”. I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “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”, comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -­‐ evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe”, this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me”, but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith”. If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’Fucking fly then you lunatic.”

This, is of course a spirituality issue, religion is a different matter. As an atheist, I see nothing “wrong” in believing in a god. I don’t think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that’s fine with me. It’s when belief starts infringing on other people’s rights when it worries me. I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn’t kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral. It’s strange that anyone who believes that an all-­‐powerful all knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are. From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. There is a god”, I’m him, no one else is, you’re not as good and don’t forget it. (Don’t murder anyone, doesn’t get a mention till number 6.)

~snip the rest~

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

[Speck Tater]

1. Good for him. People need to know that atheists are not "monsters"

Interestingly, he is a "strong" atheist, i.e., by his own admission he DOES believe that God does NOT exist:

"I’m An Atheist"

... and ...

"My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist."

And No, I really don't want to open hat can of worms again. I'm just saying, here's a counterexample for those who say "strong" atheists are the exception. And like he says, science "...doesn’t get offended when new facts come along." :) :) :)

[skepticscott]

19. So-called "strong" atheism

only makes sense if taken one god at a time. The position that no being, entity or thing that any culture, anywhere in the universe, has ever worshipped as a god exists or has ever existed simply isn't defensible, and if you pressed any "strong" atheist, they'd have to admit that. That of course raises the question of whether the "strong" variety even qualifies as a-theism, or merely as disbelief in one manifestation of theism out of an uncounted number.

[Speck Tater]

21. Let's ask the American Atheists Organization

From American Atheists Website: http://www.atheists.org/atheism

What Is Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be.
(Emphasis mine)

In other words, a belief that NO god or gods exist.

AGNOSTICISM:
THE BASIS FOR ATHEISM,
NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO IT

By David Eller

This general issue was raised in these pages by Tony Pasquarello, who distinguished between Atheism and what he called Natheism (as if we need another neologism!), the former being the good old dictionary-definition version of belief that there is no such thing as god(s) and the latter being a "new" position of rejecting belief without rejecting god(s). <1> This second position, which is sometimes called "weak" or "negative" Atheism, I also find incoherent, as I have argued in a previous article. <2> What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X? That is why I concluded that all Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X.
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.atheists.org/Agnosticism%3A_The_Basis_for_Atheism

If you disagree don't argue with me. I'm just the messenger. Go over to http://www.atheists.org/ and argue the point with THEM.

[skepticscott]

22. Sorry, but the flaw in all that is on you

It's you who is making the unwarranted leap that a "god" or "gods" MUST be super-natural, or outside the laws of nature. That is YOUR leap of logic, and YOUR distortion from this definition:

This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be.

Nowhere does the AA clip mention "god" or "gods", so please don't try to weasel out with your "I'm not the messenger" BS.

And Eller is just plain wrong and willfully ignorant, and if you thought for yourself instead of just cutting and pasting, you'd realize that.

When he asks "What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X?"...hello..it means "there is no reason to think that X can't possibly exist, but I haven't seen enough evidence YET to convince me that it does exist. Substitute extraterrestrial life, the Higgs boson, an effective treatment for autism,or uncountable other things for "god" and it makes perfect sense to any thinking person.

[Speck Tater]

23. Whatever. :)

I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just repeating what other atheists are saying.

But, since you say "Eller is just plain wrong and willfully ignorant", at least I'm not the only "willfully ignorant" person in the world. That is such a comfort to me. That you so much.

:)

[skepticscott]

29. For someone who doesn't care

you certainly post a lot on the subject. But more thinking and less typing might serve you better.

And yes, willful ignorance is the only explanation for Eller's claimed failure to grasp such a simple and elementary concept of rational thought. No one who has really considered the question at all could be as confused as he presents himself to be.

[Speck Tater]

31. It would be very interesting

to compile a list of prominent atheists which, by your definition, are "willfully ignorant". It's so wonderful that we all have you to tell us who is ignorant and who is not. What would do without your standards to live by? (You should also write to the people at Webster's and let them know that they, too, are "willfully ignorant", since one of the definitions they give for "atheist" agrees with Eller's.)

And once more for the record, I agree with you about the definition of "atheism", and I disagree with Eller's definition. HOWEVER what I am interested in discovering is how other atheists define the term. The typical atheists apparently does not define the word the same way you and I do. But since, according to every professional lexicographer in the world, a word means what user of the word say it means, nothing more and nothing less, you are claiming that everyone in the world whose definition doesn't precisely align with your own is "willfully ignorant." What is it, exactly, that makes your opinion superior to the general consensus so that you can pass such judgment on the consensus?

[salvorhardin]

2. That was a really good essay, but I have just one question...

When did Ricky Gervais start blogging for the Wall Street Journal? That just seems wrong somehow.

[girl gone mad]

28. I really thought you were going to ask..

"Why doesn't he believe in god?"

:)

[beam me up scottie]

3. "From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist.."

So much more to this guy than meets the eye, it's obvious he wasn't raised in this country. Had he been, he would have known that the worst type of person you can be is a "militant" atheist.

He was great on The Daily Show the other night, too.

[toddaa]

5. British atheists are strident

American atheists - militant
British atheists - strident

Hitch, because he's now an American citizen, gets to be both.

But we're all one big happy fundamentist atheist family.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I've decided to follow your lead and embrace the meme.

I've seen the light, the privileged christians who whine about outspoken atheists couldn't possibly be a bunch of bigoted blowhards.

I mean they ARE part of the moral majority after all.

[toddaa]

9. The fun part is you get to wear a uniform

Your mere existence already scares the shit out of them. You might as well look snazzy doing it.

[beam me up scottie]

12. For real?

Yay!

I'll add it to my collection, I've already got the official Militant Feminist uniform (similar to dominatrix wear-it's got buttons made from mens' testicles and comes with matching boots and a riding crop) and the hemp and flannel Militant Vegetarian Onesie (that one has fuzzy bunny slippers-well, not from real bunnies, of course).

[YankeyMCC]

Ricky and Jon -

Could be an outstanding comedy team :)

[beam me up scottie]

49. He had Jon in tears, they were hilarious. I wish they would give TDS a full hour.

I have dial up now and can't watch the extended interviews. :(

[Kurovski]

4. Kay & Are. (nt)

[Warpy]

6. I just haven't seen any evidence to support it

and I'm too honest to pretend that I have. It's got nothing to do with you. Now deal the cards.

That's mine.

[rug]

8. Is there a particular day or season set aside as an atheist holiday?

[ZombieHorde]

10. Some Christians like to say April first is national atheists' day.

I am unaware of any nationally accepted atheists' day.

[rug]

11. I see Snope debunked that. Well, compliments of Google, here's an atheist holiday card.

[ZombieHorde]

14. I know. I was making a self deprecating joke, or at least trying to make a joke. nt

[dimbear]

47. I like the idea of April 1st being an atheist holiday. Of course

ats origin is Biblical, based on the verse "The fool sayeth in his heart there is no God." I like the irony of that and accept it in the same way the colonial patriots accepted Yankee Doodle, originally a British slur.

[beam me up scottie]

13. No, silly, that's why we're waging war on Christmas.

Soon it will be all ours, muahahahahahahaha! :evilgrin:


Seriously, I've never even considered the question. Why would we need a holiday?

It would be an awesome thing for the talibornagain fundamentalists though, they could all slam us at the same time.

[trotsky]

16. Is there a particular day or season that is TRULY a Christian holiday...

and not something they co-opted away from someone else? :shrug:

[dimbear]

48. St. Swivens Day. Take the whole week off. n/t

[toddaa]

18. August 24th

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Some humanist groups celebrate HumanLight on December 23.

It's not widespread, but it's growing inches by inches. It was deliberately chosen to fall within the holiday season, but not directly conflict with dates already sacred to others such as Yule and Christmas. Perhaps it will be bigger some day, but it will probably take quite awhile.

http://humanlight.org/

[rug]

33. That's an interesting fact.

I think a chief purpose of setting aside a day is to note values, not simply events.

[DeSwiss]

15. K&R n/t

[katsy]

17. See him in "The History of Lying"

if at all possible.

He is very talented.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I think it's,"The Invention of Lying." nt

[Dorian Gray]

24. I love Ricky Gervais

The Office (British) and Extras are two of my favorite shows ever. And I saw him live twice. Just love him.

It's funny, though, because reading this felt..... old to me. I think it's because I've been here for so long that I've read all his thoughts from the atheists on this board before. Not that there is anything wrong with that... I expect too much from Ricky. But we've had this all stated here, repeatedly, and it just goes to show you that pretty much anything we think is an "insight" into our world view or beliefs has been said or done or thought before.

[yodermon]

26. is there a category for "i just don't give a fuck and am tired of thinking about it"

[ZombieHorde]

27. No. This is not a poll, this is a short short essay. nt

[Martin Eden]

30. Atheism is a Belief

I'm an agnostic because the greatest existential question (WHY or HOW is there ANYTHING?) is beyond human ability to answer via scientific method. An atheist believes "God" does not exist, period. I find it impossible to define "God" in terms that will answer the greatest existential question without embracing existing & conflicting religious dogma, so I can't hold a belief (one way or the other) associated with God.

I'm also anti-religion because religious instutions have a long history of indoctrination motivated by lust for wealth and power. It has fostered xenophobia and hatred and war, and I don't like the influence of religion in American politics.


quotes by Gandhi:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

[ZombieHorde]

32. Most atheists I am familiar with do not claim there is no god.

Most atheists I am familiar with claim they don't believe in god. Most atheists are also agnostics, just like many theists are also agnostics. Atheism and theism are about beliefs, agnosticism is about knowledge; two different subjects.

[darkstar3]

34. You hold no belief by your own admission.

You are therefore an agnostic atheist. The two are not remotely mutually exclusive, even though you have attempted to define atheism as an active belief like so many self-styled agnostics before you.

[Martin Eden]

36. Does anyone BELIEVE there is no God?

If so, what is the term that should be applied to that person?
Since I am apparently an agnostic atheist, would that person be an atheist atheist?
These 2-word terms seem a bit redundant and cumbersome, and it makes more sense to me to drop the 2nd word.

Dictionary definion for Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition #1 associates atheism with a belief, whereas #2 more closely describes me.
Apparently atheism can be applied to both the belief there is no God as well as as disbelief. Is there a qualitative difference between "disbelief" versus a simple "lack of" belief? I have a "lack of" belief because I entertain the possibility of a supernatural explanation for the universe (aka "God").

The English language is very nuanced with many words that convey slightly different meanings for similar concepts, but it seems to me that an intermediate term between "agnostic" and "atheist" is missing; it would eliminate misunderstanding as to whether the concept is associated with a belief.

[darkstar3]

38. Speck, is that you?

I grow tired of snipped dictionary definitions that ignore the very etymology of the word atheist. Lacking belief in a deity or deities is all that is necessary to be an atheist. You are ignoring, perhaps purposefully, the divide between knowledge and belief that has been served up to you on a platter more than once. Gnosticism is about knowledge of deities, while theism is about belief in them regardless of knowledge.

As for your subject line, the capital G for God complicates your statement. I BELIEVE (rather strongly, actually), and so do many others, that there is no such thing as the Abrahamic "God" (capital G). He is simply a logical impossibility. However, if you were to ask the following question:

"Does anyone BELIEVE there are no gods whatsoever?"

I would say "no." There are plenty of people, like myself, who simply lack belief in any particular god, but they don't completely rule out the possibility that a god-like creature might exist. As a favorite poster of mine said once (paraphrased) "There could be gods, or weretoasters, but I fucking doubt it."

When it comes down to proper usage, I'm an agnostic atheist, and so are you, and so is ZombieHorde, the originator of that quote. I don't think there needs to be any other term to define us. I simply think people need to stop taking their understanding of atheists from theists with an agenda.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Etymology is not the best way to look at the meaning of some words.

I've referenced Baggini's work below. He has a great explanation of the "etymological fallacy" on page 11. The examples he gives are "philosophy" and "tagliatelle." Knowing that the etymological root of the word "philosophy" is "love of wisdom" doesn't really tell you what philosophy is in practice. If you go into a restaurant and order the tagliatelle they aren't going to serve you little boot laces.

Atheism could just as easly be defined in a positive way as simply a naturalistic view of existence. No need to reference a negation at all. Yes it etymologically means the negation of theistic belief, but even if theism didn't exist, atheism still would. Though granted, probably by another name if any.

[darkstar3]

43. It is, however, an effective way to ensure that we do not abuse the language.

Baggini's writings are wrong from chapter 1. He holds a specific definition of atheism that is actually antithetical to the origination of the word. Atheism cannot be both an active belief, and a lack of all belief in deities. Either one of these diametrically opposed positions is the actual definition of the word, or the other is. Since etymology shows us a clear path to the lack of belief definition, it seems appropriate for me to state that any attempt to apply an antithetical definition to the term "atheism" is abuse of language.

As for your last paragraph, you are patently wrong. Firstly, atheism in NO way precludes the possibility of supernatural items. I've corresponded with atheists on this very board who think there may be an afterlife. Secondly, if theism didn't exist, atheism as a position, not just a word, would be undefined. If you think that atheism would still exist without theism, then answer this: In a universe where darkness didn't exist, would there be such a thing as light?

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. Sure atheism would still exist, it just wouldn't be recognized as atheism.

It would simply be the way people view their existence. It definitely does not need a religious belief of theism to be a perspective of the world.

What was a "black and white" television set before color television? It was just a television. It didn't become a black and white television until color television came into being. That doesn't mean a black and white television set would be rendered undefinable if color televisions had never been invented.

I didn't say atheism precluded the possibility of supernatural things, but if you carry on your conversation with these atheists, they are more than likely to also conclude that proof of supernatural things would therefore place them in the natural realm. If something is proven to exist than that negates its supernaturalism.

[Martin Eden]

42. Not sure who "Speck" is

I haven't been involved in previous debates about the meaning of the term "atheism" and this is the first time I have encountered the 2-word term "agnostic atheist."

Apparently Webster's Universal Dictionary is incomplete and/or inaccurate because the 2-word term is absent and the definition of "atheism" deviates from yours in the meaning that most people would derive from the dictionary definition.

I dispute that nobody holds the belief there is no God or gods. I have known people (including my father) who asserted such a belief, though it is possible they were referencing the (g)God(s) of religious belief without having explored or articulated the possibility of an undefined supernatural force behind the origin of the universe.

I take it there is a political battle over the meaning of atheism/atheist in which theists assert it is a belief, whereas many (most or nearly all) people who consider themselves atheists do not hold the belief that theists would apply to them.

Far be it for me to take sides with theists, as I reject their political agenda.

Out of respect for those who refer to themselves atheists but do not "believe" there is no (g)God, I will no longer make the statement in my first post in this thread. I still, however, consider myself an "agnostic."

[darkstar3]

45. In response:

There has been more than one debate, even here, about the meaning of the word atheism of late. All of the things that I might say to you here have already been said elsewhere:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x267422

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. I like the perspective of....

naturalism (atheism) / naturalism plus supernaturalism (theism)

rather than

theism / theism minus supernaturalism (atheism)

[darkstar3]

44. And again, just to hit an important point:

Atheism does not preclude supernatural possibilities.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. Actually it isn't. Julian Baggini, in his excellent book....

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction offers some compelling arguments why it isn't. I highly recommend the book to atheists, agnostics and theists. It really is a little gem.

[Martin Eden]

37. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

I googled Julian Baggini's book and started reading a review of it at Amazon.com, which begins:

In chapter 1, Baggini explains his primary purpose in _Atheism_ is to "provide a positive case for atheism," which he defines as "the belief that there is no God or gods" (p. 3).

I added the bold. I haven't delved in greater depth yet, but it looks like a very good book that I just may read ... thank you :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. LOL! Too true, but he then carries it further.

When most people say atheism is a belief what they really mean is it is a religious belief. Baggini puts forth a compelling argument for why it is neither a religious belief, nor is it dependent upon religion as an orientation. I'll leave it for him. He's far more eloquent than I.

[skepticscott]

46. Why is everything a "belief"

with sloppy thinkers like Baggini and so many others? I don't "believe" that things exist or don't exist. I have to be convinced of such things by evidence and logical arguments. Why would a rational person approach things in any other way?

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. Baggini does tackle the concepts of...

belief and faith using logical arguments. And I agree with him that they are different two entirely different things. We can have beliefs based on best evidence. Faith is not synonymous.

Sometimes I think people get too wrapped up in the word "belief" when discussing atheism. Personally, I believe I'll have a sandwich for lunch and I believe it might rain later on. That doesn't mean I haven't applied some evidence to reach those conclusions.

If I rely on faith that someone will bring me a sandwich to eat for lunch? I suspect I might go hungry.

[skepticscott]

52. You're conflating two very different

meanings and intents of the word "belief" or "believe", which makes for a very sloppy argument. The meaning of the word "believe" in "I believe I'll have a sandwich later on" is completely different than its meaning in "I believe in god".

Try again.

[Lost-in-FL]

53. Greatest existencial question? Is that you Sartre or Camus? nt

[mikekj]

54. But the real ? is............

Do you do Christmas?