True. But his arguments aren't good in the apologic Field. For instance: his argument about. There are millions of God's how do you know your God is the real one. Here's the thing, there are millions of scientific theories, how do we which one is the right one? Truth and evidencial basis. There is historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and there are many good cases made by Dr. Lincona, Gary habernas, even Athiest scholars such as gurd Ludemann attest that, the evidence points to the fact the disciples must have seen something, and he goes on to make the point that, regarding the evidence the disciples claimed that something was the risen Christ. Otherwise, the strong testimonial evidence for martyrdom and the rise of Christianity wouldn't have a good evidencial explination. All the best.
@@reshearchisgood6966 There are no historical records besides from some Greek historians who mentioned some Messiah or some shit who was killed and nothing happened after that, no Earthquake e.t.c. Second of all, scientific theories are all accepted if they transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory. Nice try though. Noah's Ark 100% didn't exist, so didn't Adam and Eve otherwise we would have all kinds of mutants running here from incestous relationship.
@@reshearchisgood6966 Nope : there are millions of theories in science, but they all point out to the same result, this is how we can know. If there are not pointing out to the same result, it means we don't know yet, or we are not studying the right thing, ergo it is just an hypotesis so far.
@@buzz1251 hello my friend I hope you are doing well let's get started: Claim 1: "no historical records besides greek historian who mentioned a killed Messiah or some S**t" I love you bro, and you are more knowledgeable than me. But by the fact you say "or some S**t" indicates you might have not done research on the topic (or you might have I guess I will find out in your next reply) The evidence for the resurrection is a cumulative case, with the core documents being: 1. the letters of Paul if you add the witnesses in his letters (I have evidence for this if you want to talk about it) It adds up to 513 witnesses of the risen Jesus Christ. Next we have The four gospels: 2.Matthew 3.Mark 4.Luke 5.John Next Extra-biblical sources: 6.the gospel of Peter 7. The annuals of roman historian Tacitus 8. Joseph's testimonium flavinum. 9.Ignatius. 10.Irenaeus of Lyon. 11.Turtulian 12. Dionysius of Corinth 13. Eusebius: Now their is chruch tradition from Eusebius In Ecclestiacial History. he was simply passing along a tradition which has been the unanimous opinion of the church for two hundred years. Attested by scholars for reliability. And others. Your claim that no records besides some greek historians mentioning some Messiah my friend is false. Claim 2. Scientific theories are only accepted when transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory. Again you are more knowledgeable than me. And I agree with this claim but it doesn't refute my argument For instance: in the last century the universe was believed by the consensus to be infinite, so it's fits your criteria, However is it correct? Given The BVG therom by Alexander Vilenkin it shows any expanding universe cannot be past eternal therefore shows a universe cannot exist on necessity of its own nature. Now the consensus of scholars do not believe in an eternal universe. That theory is one of many that have passed your transitional criteria and because of future evidence Been proven Wrong. Now I'm going to copy and past this section of this comment and comment it to the guy who commented after you because he literally said a similar thing. My point is that in the same sense we can prove or disprove certain religions my position is Christianity is true given the evidence and all the others are fake. I respect and love Ricky Gervais but he doesn't know what he is talking about. All the best.
As an atheist I appreciate Stephens will to discuss this topic on tv, most tv host are afraid to. Edit: some of you guys have missed my point, nobody is 100% sure if there is a god, just be compassionate to each other.
@@PhysicsGuy1000 Time started with the big bang. I like Stephen Colbert, but when he talks about this, it just really sounds dumb. Was Stephen watching "Doctor" Frank Turek, and thought to himself "Wow, this fellow really has some new ideas." In other words, Stephen sounds very, very dumb, like Frank Turek.
Ricky is a very very clever man, he presents himself as an ordinary bloke (which he is), but he has a sharp intellect and wit to match. He doesn’t suffer fools and is very happy to debate. What a civilised debate. Well done gents!
I'm an atheist but I do like Stephen's point that he has a strong desire to direct his gratitude towards something. I think that explains a lot about religion and why every civilisation and every country throughout history has had a religion to follow.
@@angusmcculloch6653 nice one! I missed that... even though science is incredible and you can see how the same formulas could pop up again if we erased them, you have to assume the conclusion to make the claim that a Holy book wouldn't resurface.
@@angusmcculloch6653 It really speaks for itself. Count the number of gods there have been throughout history and how many religions were based on that god. It numbers three thousand at the very least. Since "god" is supposedly the ultimate entity that means - also at the very least - two thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine of those gods were simply human inventions. If you destroyed their holy books, Ricky is totally correct in saying those books wouldn't return just as they were. That also means - at the very most - only one god and one holy book WOULD come back just as it was, which is as unlikely as it is unconvincing.
You know, that’s how every conversation between an atheist and a believer should be. Coherent, respectful, amicable and in gratitude for the interaction. Well done, gentlemen.
@@sfender2182 Please explain to me how ancient ideology based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of the universe caused by sheer ignorance and perpetuated by willfully and actively denying new information "works in harmony" with a methodology based on an ever growing understanding of the universe by constantly updating its information about it through constant investigation. Please tell me why you are so incredibly behind the times that you even come up with this BS argument.
Yes, Hector.... we all understand you drug addicts want to be treated like normal people.... You could also just take a broom and get rid of all these egg shells....
@@toddsleezer3580 Your opinions are every bit as bad as the religious people you're condemning. Trying to "convert" them until they believe the same things you do is as bad as religious people doing the reverse.
@@SwayneIII Gah no stop I'm a Christian myself and I'm speaking from experience when I say arguing about religion online isn't gonna get anyone anywhere. It's just not worth it.
"You don't believe in 2,999 gods, and I don't believe in just one more". That's absolutely fantastic. I love that quote! I also love how Ricky quickly pointed out the pointless question of "why", and navigated the question towards "how", right from the get go. Fantastic.
Absolutely - as is the point about if we lost all books in 1000 years all science books would be exactly the same yet all religious texts would be completely and totally different. Maybe similar stories (a chosen one, virgin birth, etc) since those stories exist in hundreds of different religions, almost all of which were before christianity.
@@ross-carlson yup. If any religion was the truth from their all powerful deity, it would have existed since...well, before humanity. The Bible, or the belief in the Christian God, would have existed always. Like, if the Christian God is real, and there's no other gods or anything and people need God's word to get into their fantasy happy place, we'd have known since day 1. But we haven't. The Bible was created by the Roman empire shortly after Christianity became the state religion. And there's religions all throughout time, and all different and all made up bullshit. Also we have proof of the big bang and can measure that proof through the cosmic background radiation. So stephan colbert saying it can't be proven or were just talking someone's word for it (and equating acknowledging our current understanding of the universe with faith based brainwashing is just horrible intellectually. It's shallow and underhanded, but religion needs these tactics to continue the conversation)
@Monkey D. Luffy the formal definitions of debate and dialogue would disagree with you, but if you mean from the standpoint of which one is usually less hostile, then sure, a dialogue would likely be preferable.
I found it pretty astounding that Stephen questioned the validity of science and used that as an argument when all the people on the left are doing is glorify science (as long as it serves their agendas). It shows that he doesn't shy away from strawmanning when his defences have no effect on his debate partner.
@@chrissonofpear1384 nice try, but you can take anything out of context and it will sound bad. Read the whole Numbers chapter 31 and it is clearly stated they are at war. Worse things have happened when at war throughout history. Don't be that guy who's like the media these days taking things out of context and putting it out there 🙂
@MAD GRUMPYMAN what I believe in or not is irrelevant. Debate by definition is a formal discussion on a particular topic where arguments are put forward, no matter how rational or irrational it is to a particular person outside of that debate. I'm sure you've seen or have friends debate about which movies/games or whatever fictional medium is better and why. No one's going to question whether you're rational/irrational about debating those kinds of topic. It just so happens you're someone who finds one side of this debate irrational, and that's fine.
I appreciate that when Ricky gave a reasonable response to Stephen's rhetoric, Stephen actually listened and accepted the responses. Doesn't happen very often in religious debates.
Proof that you can disagree with someone and remain civil. I am so sick of people attacking others verbally, physically, and financially because they choose to have a different belief or opinion.
*"You don't believe in 2999 Gods, I don't believe in 1 more"* I had to go back and listen again cause man that was really good argument. Respect Ricky!
It is no argument whatsoever. It is a very poor attempt to try and show that the believer is also an atheist just like him, but it's false. An Atheist doesn't believe in ANY Gods. He believes in one. So he is not an atheist in any way shape or form. You can't be an atheist towards 300 Gods and not be an Atheist in regards to one God... because then you are not an atheist.
A monotheist can easily say: oh yeah, some of those pagan Gods were probably real. They were either angels sent by God to spiritually prepare humans for the full revelation, or demons sent to confuse and distort
@@jamesemerson4102 His may not be an argument, but religions completely denying and contradicting each other, ridiculing one another's existence is one hell of an argument to make..
It’s a really good point I never thought about! If god did write the Bible and then disappeared for what 2000+ years now, the belief system would only restart if he did exist and rewrite it again. We as a society don’t need a belief system to create a kingdom/country anymore. So it would be an interesting turn of events if someone created a new belief system just to do it.
@@YokedGirthZ The Bible itself says the word of God is written on the hearts of mankind (conscience). The attributes of the Holy Spirit (AKA God) (1 of 3 God Heads that Stephen believes in) are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control. If you destroyed the Bible stories would be lost. However, much of it would survive in the natural conscience of all humanity. Also the theoretical game is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. Ricky says IF all the books were destroyed. Well if Christ is truly the son of God and God is all powerful. Then if He is truly God, He would not allow his instruction manual and stories of His love for us be destroyed. Hitler tried to destroy books such as these. Probably could have done it but he failed. So the IF game is silly. It hasn't happened. So what's the point in saying IF? That's the same logic he accuses people of spiritual belief to use. Love and respect for both. Just sharing thoughts
@@JustHuman87 God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
It occurred to me in middle school that an alien landing on a version of Earth that is identical to ours but without bibles, would never in a million years come up with the Judeo-Christian creation myth as the reason for Earth's existence. I wrote a paper on it, made my teacher real mad.
@@MamaSymphonia Humans were the same as aliens when they first arrived on Earth. So humans are historical proof that in a short period of time they would come up with that myth over and over again. Nearly every culture in history believed in gods that were responsible for the natural world. If they were unique throughout all time it would imply that there was something specific about their time period that led them to those conclusions. Since as pointed out in the video, the science is likely not to have changed, it would suggest that something else was giving the people of that time period the impression that there were powerful people more similar to them than the animals that they could not see.
@@nottyseel949 There is no evidence for any of the gods that have been invented by man though. Their invention is prevalent because we're all human and have a tendency to imagine things being done by an agent. And it's really easy to invent a powerful agent that is capable of doing things like throwing lighting bolts (Zeus, for instance). But an alien landing on this planet would never reconstruct the specific legend of Zeus from the available natural evidence. They would never come to the conclusion that a God sent his only son to die for human sins to save them from an eternal torment that the God created in the first place. Outside human culture and the religious texts they produced, there is no physical evidence of any of these supernatural tales, whether Zeus or Jesus. And therefore no good reason to believe they happened.
@@MamaSymphonia Sure, fam. I don't really care about any of that it does not serve any purpose to deny or support what you or anyone thinks, I just think that the point you are making cancels out the point you are making. You imply that some creatures that you do not know exist (aliens of a sort for which you have no reference) would never do in a million years what history proves happened in the only similar creatures that we know of (assuming you meant aliens that would have similar brain function to humans not as in animals). You even said that humans have a tendency to attribute events to an agent. If it is a tendency then it is likely to happen again if you run the experiment again. I'm not talking about or interested in Judeo-Christian myths, but specifically the point you are making.
@Scott Scotty Sounds like the assumptions people made up when they made up the various gods they believed in. Whatever makes you assume aliens would be any sort of intelligent in the way we think of intelligence is probably the same reason people assumed there were other creatures like humans in other realms/dimensions. Could be true as any other complete guess, but the likelihood is, that like the other billions (trillions?) of species of life that we KNOW to exist, aliens are likely not to care about any of these questions or ideas. They are evidently more likely to just eat, sleep, mate, and pay no attention to life or space outside of their immediate environment like every other form of life we know. Humanoid brain patterns could be popular, but we have no evidence to suggest we should assume humans are not a complete anomaly even thinking about the universe and existence in the first place.
I've never seen Colbert struggle so much with an interview. He really looked like he was having a hard time not getting emotional. You can tell both of these guys were holding back about a topic that's extremely important to them. Gervais was more in his element I think.
Sabbath is no longer for us to keep, otherwise we would ruin the 6th commandments, which says: DO NOT KILL! Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: it is the sabbath or the 6th commandment. Cant have both. Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
@@theharshtruthoutthere Your comment here is a perfect example of where religious people overstep the mark. You said _"Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should:"._ You're simply attempting to project your beliefs onto others as if it were mandatory and it isn't. Religion has gotten away with that mandate for centuries.
@@EvoraGT430Catholics don’t believe in new Earth creationism, widely rejected in fact. Only biblical literalists, mostly Baptists, believe in new-Earth, as well as the growing problem of the evangelical movement
Joseph TotalFestTime!!! I can see why BIll Maher's attitude would turn people off. I'm not the greatest fan of his myself and I think it's for that reason. I actually like him best when he's just being pure logic without the posturing because it's then that his emotional, logical, and social intelligence shine through in a way that is just beautiful to see from someone who has a voice in society. I get the sense from seeing how different he is when appearing on other peoples' shows that his posturing, arrogant attitude is more of a "character" than anything. And in fairness, he is standing up to some people who are really staunch and arrogant in the opposite direction of beliefs. So maybe that's why he feels it's necessary to be that way about it. And I'd venture to say there is something of a double standard going on when it comes to atheists versus theists. Theists who are arrogantly confident in their beliefs (in my experience) get a lot less flak for it than atheists do. An atheist acts a little aggressive, pushy, or even just overly confident about being an atheist and they are accused of being arrogant, rude, etc. A believer does the same and we call them a preacher and give them a microphone. It doesn't help that thematically, atheism is usually rooted in an exercise in logic, whereas theist belief is usually rooted in faith (an emotional kind of belief). And it's really easy to sound and be arrogant when it's logic versus emotion. Many of us would probably end up sounding a little arrogant and patronizing if we said "it's not raining outside" and someone insisted that it is, despite the sensations showing that when you go outside, you don't get wet. And I think that's how it can end up feeling for many atheists, is like it's as obvious as whether it's raining outside; the evidence isn't there. But then we are supposed to be nice to the people who believe it's raining outside and tell them that they can think what they want, and we will be respectful of what they believe. And that can be really hard to do.
TransparentLabyrinth All that logic sounds impressive until you remember that neither the existence of matter nor the origin of matter can be explained logically. I've never heard any atheist explain how matter came to exist out of a void.
earl campbell Well to be fair, the rain analogy I gave may not translate exactly, as there are senses we can use that tell us without question whether it's raining or not (as analogies go, it's not the most accurate I've ever made). That being said, atheism has no special obligation to explain existence in any way, shape, or form, and that's a point that is often confused. Atheism is, at its most basic, the lack of belief in a god, or gods. Deism says there is a creator and they don't interfere. Theism says there is a creator and they intervene in some way. Deism and Theism are explanations for where the universe came from. Atheism is not... it's just disbelieving the claims about there being a divine creator. Agnosticism is (strictly speaking) the belief that it is fundamentally unknowable whether a god, or gods, exist or not. To further complicate things, agnosticism is also often used casually to describe a sort of "fence-sitting" position, where one isn't quite sure whether they believe in a god or not and can't be bothered to make a strong decision about it. The point of all of this is, if you encounter an atheist who has an explanation for how the universe came into existence, it is not a "teaching of atheism." It is an explanation that an atheist has that has nothing to do with atheism itself. Most atheists probably have mixed opinions about how the universe came into being and many probably don't have a strong opinion about it at all. The only thing atheists have in common that pertains to atheism itself is that they aren't buying the "god / divine creator" explanation. If you take a step back from it and you compare the phenomenon of atheism to, say, belief about whether the patriots won the most recent superbowl, you might think that the whole complex naming of different positions on the matter is rather absurd. But we've reached this point of complexity because so many people take it so seriously, this question of where we came from. It is perhaps the most burning question our species has.
TransparentLabyrinth Obviously, I respect your intellect & writing ability. Someone with your IQ knows what I'm getting at with my previous comment. You're also aware that some of us theists are not idiots. If God exists, but has no desire to be scientifically proven yet,... Peace and good will to you.
Me three! Especially the question "how can something come out of nothing" invites that kind of speculation and debate which is fun, not destructive. To get there within a 5 minute time slot is pretty bold.
Gervais makes some good points to be sure. Take his example about holy books vs scientific facts. But in my mind, the two aren't competitive at all. They are on two different planes. Take a thesis about microbiology vs beethoven's 5th symphony. Both describe some type of order: one about order of biological science, one about arrangement of tones from various instruments. I would be willing to say that BOTH are works of genius. And both DEFINITELY exist in a real way. But if you tried to determine the existence of Beethoven's 5th by the standards of microbiology, you might be forced to conclude the symphony doesn't exist. Same goes the other way around. They exist FAR OUTSIDE the realms of one another. You couldn't judge microbiology based on principles of music, and vice versa. The same goes for God. He is SO FAR OUTSIDE the realms of music, of microbiology, etc, that to expect to find perfect conclusive evidence of him in one of those fields is very strange to me. Instead, He (God) leaves clues in those fields. Which, if I'm honest, makes getting to know Him WAY more interesting and FUN!!!
Its called evolution, the universe has been around for billions of years. We so happen to be on a planet that is the perfect distance between a star for life to form and evolve. And sure the ink dots on a paper showing notes can exist, but unless people who understand music can translate it and play it, its just a piece of paper with scribbled ink. Lets take nature for example if you can make a formula translating certain trees that look certain ways into notes, you now have trees creating music. How a mind can take information and translate it what ever way you want is called imagination, does not have to exist but in the mind it can.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
I disagree mate, one of them talked calmly and with logic and reasoning the other had nothing to say to back up their claims and resorted to joking their way out of the debate.
yeh he was referring to the holly wood pedo stuff thats what he meant when he said thats why im a good boy ;) ua-cam.com/video/sR6UeVptzRg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=FireFilms
I 100% believe in Rickys theory with science existing again after 1000years and no literature to back it up. However, I think it’s sort of ignorant to not think religion wouldn’t rebound again in the same amount of time. it’s made up, someone will make it up again. I mean, just take Scientology for example, it was brought to life within the last 100 years and has a devoted following.
This is so refreshing and we need so much more of this type of discourse. Atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, and others who don't believe in a God or gods remain largely misunderstood and discriminated against in the U.S. and throughout the world. Thank you for producing and sharing this great discussion.
I'm nearly 70. When I was young, here in England, practically everybody went to the Church of England every Sunday. It was an accepted part of life. In 2023, over ninety-nine percent of the population *_don't_* go. I don't know what the figures are for America but I think the world is finally walking around all religions.
@@aurademon Atheist religion claims that men can give birth. Islame claims that women have semen production near their neck. What is the _difference_ between atheist religion and islame?
Honestly, one of the reasons I like Steven: he's not afraid to challenge his guests in actual discussion. And to talk about atheism on a main channel network is so big, introducing new ideas to people who may not have thought about them before.
It's hard to believe the notion that there might NOT actually be a man in the sky controlling everything, and brings people he likes up there with him after they die is something that most people may not have thought about before.
Dude, I do not know about you roryl, but I had a talk with the big guy in the sky yesterday when I prayed. Yea, he was like "Hey man, what the heck are you all doing down their? I sent Donald Trump to be a clown, not your President! Don't make me send my only begotten son back down there!"
"If you destroyed every holy book, and waited a thousand years, they wouldn't all come back and be exactly the same. If you destroyed every bit of science we have, and waited a thousand years, it would come back exactly the same." - That is one hell of an argument.
yes it was brilliant. but i was thinking would the religious people would get a counter logic to this also . and i think they will. they will say "yes right. thats why we try to save our holy books , because no simple man can write them on its own, only the messenger of god can write that "
If you believe "The messenger of God" wrote the bible, you're probably Muslim and not Christian. :P In Christianity it's a recognized fact that the book is not holy on it's own, and that the first passages of the new testament were written at least half a century after the death of Jesus. Obviously a lot of modern Christians don't know any of this, because most modern Christians don't actually give enough of a shit about their supposed "Faith" to study it, yet atheists who do, and call it out on it's bullshit, are assholes. Because logic, I suppose. Pointless online credentials that no one's going to believe anyway: I study Religious Science. (As in, the science of how religions work, and not.. Creationism, or whatever).
yeah except for some holy books, that have scientific truths. I mean I don't know too much about the Quran but it contains the first written statement that the universe if forever expanding. I think that is recurring but started in the Quran.
@@ricco48219 He's got a degree in philosophy from University College London. I haven't seen him in a formal debate situation, but I doubt he would be terrible.
@@ACharmedEarthling well I wont say terrible then. However he doesn’t have formal practice. I don’t expect an fresh out of highschool player to dominate freshman year in college either tho so. Lol
I have such respect for both these people. This is how debate could be. It's far too polarising and divisive, lacking nuance and respect. Well done to you both and thank you for a pleasant and fun segment.
i shuld'not be here to yall dum coments but the fake playge did'not get me HAH. but i messd up so many organ delivers for lots of diferent reasons but i dont have to go into that.thank the sistem it dont let them find out that i was the kink in the chaine for 24 to 44 died p.eople but not my problem bcuz why did them people even needed organs in the first place. i did them favors they probz thank me from heavan.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 If you are think that being when can if do that of is where wasn't can be without it. Do when bring is of it can you up is of there? Or can bring when be of that is? ? Because when they are there is the in of doing with them they are that ones. So if are they that one is you and without then? When do so can if it was there when it will didn't can then how does it went to that before there is on timing inside without them?
Ricky Gervais actually has a degree in philosophy. He can go toe to toe with anyone in a philosophical debate, and is a fascinating person to listen to on the subject.
His arguments are dumb af, I can make the same argument: everyone is a theist he just believes in one less god than the rest. You see how stupid it sounds ?
I love theology and a philosophical debate would be cool... Did you know that 150 pair of homosexuals defeated the Spartan army... And I don't remember the Hebrews forcing anyone to believe in Jehovah, Emmanuel or Melchizedek One God many names... What they did do was demonstrate the love and compassion the Lord has for his children... Their lifestyle was theirs to choose outside of that community... Even though I am a god-fearing Christian that is the way it needs to be in our nation... Instead of trying to destroy the Democracy in this country the Republicans would be busy working at building their communities... And helping others to do the same and if you don't want to go into a certain community because there's homosexuals there you have that right... If you don't want to go on certain community that's all minorities you have that right... If you don't want to go into a community because their all Muslims you have that right... But the RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY wants to tell all communities how they should live and who they should pray to... While the evil reds decide some communities don't deserve to live at all... When the poor won't fight the Red Republicans wars anymore that's when they attack us in our homes financially... Encouraging us with her money to fight amongst ourselves for crumbs... This is what the Red Russian Republican party has in store for us... But like in Russia when you're attacking someone else it's awful hard to build for yourself...
Television needs to be more like this, two people having a conversation on a topic they disagree on. Not ending in a war or a fight but with a handshake and respect.
I think it’s so cool that all people have a chance to have eternal perfect love and beauty that far, far, exceeds anything that we are able to experience here during our earthly life!! That is heaven; and it goes on forever.
@@sfender2182 i think it's not so cool that the people claim there's a heaven and have no concrete evidence for it yet expect you to change your world view and morals for it
@avonmaster6628 Actually there is a lot of evidence for the existence of heaven. Study Near Death Experiences (NDE). Many have told about these heavenly (and sometimes hellish) experiences. There was also a new movie (towards the end of 2023) about NDE’s titled Near Death; perhaps check it out. A world view based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church is uplifting in many ways. As Jesus taught; love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and others as yourself (others.. as in everyone).
@@christservant7051 is that why this atheist has had far more success in life than you, a religious person, will ever have? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
@@gordongecko5950 success of what? I’ll have every lasting life. He doesn’t know God and God is not in his heart. He doesn’t have a clue what he believes in that is what an atheist is lol. I follow Gods rule I’m not religious. Religion is a man made thing. If your going to start typing words make sure you come with facts my friend.
@@gordongecko5950 You and him have clearly never read the bible so how can you even have an opinion on something your not educated in. All the fame and success will be burned in hell if he doesn’t repent and give his life to God. He may someday have a change of heart and I pray you and him do.
There's a very interesting longer discussion between Stephen Fry and Craig Ferguson from a good few years back along similar topics. Look out for that one, it's here on YT somewhere.
I find it interesting that these discussions come up so much in the US. Where I live in Scandinavia it is up to yourself if you are religious or not and leave it to others what they want to think or not. Nothing to quarrel about and it is not disturbing the community feeling as a whole. I gather that it has historic reasons that those who were unsatisfied and wanted all to have same believes as them were those who wandered off to the US back in time. And now they are gathered in groups over there all being unsatisfied with each other :)
how come you happen to be reading my messages, processing it, and then trying to refute me saying there's a purpose by using an organ in your body that's extremely complicated that you use to move your fingers to press these buttons, and your dna more complicated than any man made computer in existence, no matter how far in the future? what made it so you'd be like that and then come here and have emotions that you use to tell me that I'm an idiot with your anger that you for some reason have at something like this?
you guys purposely go to whatever video mentions religion and argue because that's all you do and you never question why or how you're able to this is not politics but it is treated like it I'd rather spend my time using my life instead of doing this
@@marmalontoast I agree 100%, the people who can’t see that either just side with Colbert because his beliefs are their own, or they are the people who constantly interrupt and talk over people lol
Because they're smart enough to understand that nobody really knows, there is no end to these types of conversations so why waste so much of your energy.
@@SUGAR_XYLER Only a non believer could have the audacity to utter such a blasphemy from their cursed mouths You do not know the enormity of what you have done child Pray regularly and be fearful of the Lord for he may forgive your rebellious delinquency We superior ones won't lower ourselves to be deceived by the likes of you heretics In this day and age We can only hope you juveniles to have the luxury of proper guidance
I think it is a copout. The difference between religious vs. non-religious is much greater than between religions. And many religions acknowledge other believers.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist while many don't either and different religions literally show in many ways how faith can be created and interpreted in so many ways that you can never say your religion is the true way of viewing the world or life. Because then you would be debating someone elses faith in something different from yours. If you believe in one god, then why would you believe in other gods that defy the existence of your god?
No it isn't at all. Science is his God, which is made up of multiple types. He makes claims that science would come back the same, yet he knows he has no proof and is making a ridiculously false claim. Science has changed throughout the years and it will continue to do so
@@lloyd8550 I agree, the purely rational person would be agnostic, since science can neither prove nor disprove God. By professing the absolute absence of God, he has just as much faith as a religious person believes there is God.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Those are just words, though. Such words worked for centuries but it's 2023, you have to prove what you are claiming with real evidence. Ricky will be held accountable for his beliefs, will he? What evidence do you have that proves your claim to be true?
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Watch how easy it is to do what you're doing. _"Ricky is wrong though and he will be held accountable for his beliefs and his decision to lead others away from Allah during the time of judgment. Unless he accepts Allah."_ It's too easy to do this routine for any religion.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g With respect, you're doing it again. You're typing things without attaching any evidence to them. They're just words unless you attach some evidence to prove your words are true. _"And God will honor that"_ you claim. Without typing 500 words of avoidance, prove with evidence that god will do that. And watch how many words you type to dodge providing that evidence.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g You know and I know that the only evidence you have for your claims is _"You read it in an old book."_ - the Bible. And that's a book that Einstein called _"Primitive legend."_ I've been religious. I've been where you are. Telling people _"Believe in Jesus and you will be saved."_ Until someone asked me to produce the same evidence I'm asking you for.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g ok here's the question. _"Apart from reading it in a book, what evidence do you have that dismisses all other gods and proves your god created the universe?"_
nida shafa oh so you think killing, stealing & raping people is a good moral guidance for people? and I’d like to inform you that there is no proof that the Quran didn’t change throughout these years.
Ricky pulled out two of the best points regarding this topic: atheist don't believe in 1 less god than theists and the universal nature of scientific knowledge. And the way he summed them up was brilliant.
@Mohamud Ahmed First mover gets you to a cause...not a god. And that is still pure philosophy. None of the other disciplines support the notion of god whatsoever.
@Mohamud Ahmed Are you already insulting me? That's how you know you are on the losing side. Put on your big boy pants on and try explaining how a first cause gets you to god.
@Mohamud Ahmed You didn't explain how a first cause gets you to god in any way. Here is the original argument. 1.Everything that exists/begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2.The universe exists/began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. That is the first cause philosophical argument...and it doesn't even mention god.
@Mohamud Ahmed God is dead....we killed him like the 999 gods that came before him. If your god is truly real then tell him to come say hello. Pro tip: he won't because he is a fairy tale.
@@jeanvandorst4287 Let's turn that around for a second. Are you saying that the ones that don't *are* worthy of consideration? Are unicorns, leprechauns, vampires, etc all up for debate, too?
With respect, Mr Gervais didn't prove anything whatsoever. Where is the proof exactly? There was none - he simply made the mother of all assumptions (amazingly, unchallenged by the host), which proved to be a good sound-bite. His comment was received rapturously (as all populist positions are these days), but his argument was astonishingly flawed (please see my post above).
It’s called indoctrination. He even admitted that he just has a vague sense of gratitude and wants t direct it at something. That is illogical, by definition.
There must be a first cause, which is the Creator It is impossible for nothing to produce anything God must have existed before creation And it must be one, since there is only one will, the cause of everything Where everything is created He must have a will, since creater He must have complete knowledge since He created everything He must have full power as he created everything the creation must be out of Creator Let me give you an example (of course I do not liken myself to God Almighty, but for the sake of clarification) If I made an invention, for example, a television Am I going to say it came out of nowhere? Of course not, or I say it does not have a creator, the creator is the inventor Will I be a part of it? of course not Do I have a will when I made TV Will I be fully aware of this TV? Yes Is my strength in the moment of the television industry superior to the television (if we do not take the factor of time) (because God is outside time because time and space are created) Yes Will the Creator create creatures that have a nature and a different creation from the rest of creation (animals) (1 freedom of choice 2 consciousness 3 language 4 mathematics) Of course, the four virtues of Islam are part of the instinct that God created in man And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, and said, Inform me of the names of these men. ♦ The surah and verse number: Surat Al-Baqarah (31). name = أسماء Names mean languages, information, etc It is the instinct that God has placed in human Surah At-Tur verse 36 Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?[And] have they created the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no certainty of anything![How could they?] Are thy Sustainer’s treasures with them? Or are they in charge [of destiny]?Or have they a ladder by which they could [ascend to ultimate truths and] listen [to what is beyond the reach of human perception]? Let, then, any of them who have listened [to it] produce a manifest proof [of his knowledge]! The universe cannot create itself, as if you say that my mother gave birth to herself. This is illogical. Where there is a point of not having it and not having children, so this is stupidity to say that nothing produces anything You cannot find evidence for it (for example, mathematics cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2 has no evidence, but we believe that it is true and certain without evidence Likewise, language. Why does man have language and not like animals, just voices of anger and distress, etc.? A riddle, and we have no evidence for the existence of language. You cannot prove that language is real. You cannot prove consciousness. You can't prove that you are real and exist, not just a dream or illusions as well as the rest) That is why humans are different from other creatures Therefore, these four qualities must have a reason and a judgment For example, the choice So we choose to believe or not to believe in God Language so that there is communication and knowledge of the existence of God etc (As well as the build the earth and make it better *) Therefore, these four characteristics must have a reason It's not just a blank who created the Creator I will simplify an old philosophical principle for you. If I asked you for an Apple and you said to me, I will give you. If the one phiend me gives me, then the one who behind behind me ....... to infinity (Infinity), will the Apple reach me? No, of course, as well as the universe and everything (the universe and everything) (exist) so there is an end and a final cause we are the product of the first cause so this cuts off the end of the causes do you have proof that your seventh grandfather exists? did you meet him How did you conclude that he exists? Maybe he came out of nowhere (nothing) You will say of course not, this is nonsense. No mind accepts it. you will follow the logic that says that every accident has a cause Likewise, did the universe come from nothing, or is Allah is the creator? Now I have explained to you the Creator with logic and reason away from any religion But there is a gap. Did God create us and give us the four distinct qualities without benefit? of course not This gives the attribute of inferiority (Glory be to God Almighty). God is perfect The Messengers sent to every nation prophets, As Allah said in the Qur'an . and the last of them was Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace Is there a religion other than Islam that does not contradict logical arguments? There is no The religions and philosophies of Central and East Asia The Creator is present in all creatures This is logically wrong Christianity (There are 3 gods and at the same time they are one and this is a contradiction) The Creator regrets creation The Creator did not know the harvest season Doesn't know when the hour . The Creator put a rainbow beside him so that he remembers not to drown the world in a flood. But he drowned them anyway . God is the creator of the world, how can he be ignorant of something? He is the creator of everything, he must possess the knowledge of everything etc We Muslims use Allah, not God Because "God " is giving meaning that he is male This is wrong there nothing like Him Allah Almighty
@@chrisbuesnell3428 How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo Then why do theists seem to think our ignorance is their evidence? I wish Gervais had pushed this point - Colbert would have run into a wall, conversationally.
It's a ridiculous statement because everything you can be told scientifically is objective, tested, reviewed and falsified, and this prat says he believes in a god just because he wants to direct his gratitude towards something, what a moron
It's not ironic. It's an attempt by theists to claim that science and religion are on equal footing. That we "blindly" follow Newton. They aren't, of course. They skip the burdon of proof Newton had to meet and don't acknowledge the community that set the bar and accepts his proof when the bar is met.
It is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
comparing science to history is stupid. (if you read the Bible, it contains a lot of historical relevance, for example Nero. He existed just as Jesus did, it's proven that he did, I'm not talking about his miracles, only talking about the man that existed.) If history books were destroyed, you wouldn't find out all that stuff again, because they're not laws of nature, they're stories, things that happened in the past. So if there's nobody who lives in those times and there are no recordings of any kind of that time, we have no idea what that time was like. Science is different from history.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Daniel Phan How convenient to just willingly give all those properties to a creator. If I didn't know how the universe began, and wanted to give all the credit to a supernatural being, timeless/all powerful/beginningless are all properties I would as ascribe, as well. What a flawed concept. The easy way out. The belief without evidence, perhaps even in spite of, will never be a system I wish to partake in. And as an adult human being with the ability to understand complex thought, you should be ashamed for participating in such childish thinking
His point is about as valid as comparing Newton's work and saying that WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen that way again. They are very different and it is a flawed comparison at its based. It has always been a flawed comparison. on top of that, many religions share themes despite being completely different. The say a new mono-theistic religion would not surface that is similar to Christianity is a complete lack of understanding of history.
@@TonyEnglandUK More than 110 million people slaughtered in less than 100 years in the name of atheist religion. A very impressive kill score indeed. Even muslims are impressed with the _efficiency_ in genocide.
I liked that wording. , " If we destroyed every holy book, in a thousand years they'd all be back but not the same as it was. If we destroyed every science book, in a thousand years they'd all be back the same, because every test would yeild the same result". OWNED!!
@Tim H a lot of science is speculation hence why many views are called "theories". Which scientists do you believe in? The ones who claim GMO food is good for you or the ones who claim it is bad for you? What about consciousness? Is life really created out of matter and chemicals yet there is no real evidence of this? Which theory of the creation of the universe do you believe in? Using the word "theory" is nothing but an indirect way of saying "We have no real faith in this scientific view but it is the best we can do for now and it is all subject to change so please don't sue us if it is wrong".
@@ktailor1980 "a lot of science is speculation hence why many views are called "theories". The fact you can write this demonstrates you don't know what a scientific theory is. You should study that before making such statements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory What you're referring to is actually a hypothesis, and all you've done is repeat some religious propaganda intended to discredit the irrefutable achievements of science, like the computer and Internet you used to write your ignorant comment disparaging science.
@Amândio Rocha you should definitely go and meet NASA and all the other scientists in the world who are still spending so much time and money trying to understand the origin of the universe and gravity better. Please go and rescue them. Indeed there is no magic involved in creating life. It's all a natural process called "science". If you ask me what exactly is that natural process, I have no idea, I just call it science to make it sound like it makes sense to fool creationists into thinking, that I know what I'm talking about. These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need magic to explain nature, because it's all a natural process called science. You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass, space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point, because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no mass, no nothing, do you understand? There was only the point, a bit like a dot, and from that point a universe came out, just like that - poof - for no apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved, just your everyday science... it's all a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very scientific. I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it happened over long, long, very long time. That's all you have to know and that it's called "science". Also, don't worry yourself that no one with an actual brain actually believes the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals. Don't worry that the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense than atheism *cough-cough*, I mean magic. The fact that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is also totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it - natural process, natural process, process process, let's get scien-tific no magic, no magic, magic magic no no ... see how good it makes you feel? "From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t." --Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, There Must Be A God, Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981. & Hoyle On Evolution. Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105
paul eggins yeah but Ricky obviously destroyed him, just as any rational conversation about the existence of god. People will say god is not rational.. well that is a paradox because reasoning without using your reason wouldn’t make to much sense right? U are right though, it’s a pretty polite confrontation but I think it’s just because no one was trying to convince no one and the debate was short and pretty superficial
Jonathan Rao True, but normally when God & religion are being discussed tempers can & often rise. Just nice seeing two different views being discussed with humour & with an absence of any malice.
Love the way Ricky isnt dismissive or rude towards his host because he obviously has beliefs that are dear to him, he only explains the way facts that lead him to his own thoughts & beliefs, he literally puts in to words what I feel but cannot explain, have to say that the host also isn’t aggressive on the topic, great snippet of conversation 👏
Atheists usually arent. I find its the religious people that a rude as soon as you challenge their made up beliefs. Christians and Catholics are the easiest to debate since every story in there book originated in another religion
Colbert trying his hardest to get a rise out of Ricky at certain points... but to no avail! Ricky invites these chats with open arms and a calm demeanour because he know's that people have very strong belief systems and always want to challenge him about why he doesn't believe in the same religion/ beliefs as them. So dynamic and clear with his explanations, without belittling the opposition during a conversation that means so much to a lot of people! Masterfully navigated Ricky... Hats off to you pal!
I've never heard it put that way but I really liked that answer Ricky gave of, " you don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in one more." framing it in that context was such a good clear way of getting the other person to relate to you and see it from your perspective.
That would make sense if the each god had a mathematically equal value. Meaning, if there were 100 gods, and you believe in one, then you’re a 99% nonbeliever and someone else is a 100% nonbeliever. But in reality, the difference in believing there is 1 or 0 gods is much more than just a 1% leap. In effect, you aren’t moving around within a category, you are destroying the category itself. It’s like saying I believe in one gender and you believe in zero. Some people believe in an infinite number of genders across a spectrum. But there is MUCH more similarity between believing in 1 or 2 genders and believing in 3000+, than either of those are to believing in no genders at all. Again, the first two options maintain the category of gender, the third demolishes it and shows how vastly a different view it really is.
Except there aren't degrees of theism, its binary, you either are one or you aren't. It's like a vegetarian justifying vegetarianism by saying, “We are all vegetarians when it comes to not eating most species of animals. Some of us just go a few species further.” Or an Amish person saying, “We are all Amish when it comes to not using most of the technology humanity has ever invented. Some of us just go a few technological devices further.”
One man believes the world is round. Another believes it is flat. Another believes it is rectangular. Another believes it's shaped like a Krispy Kreme donut. One more guy believes the earth has no shape at all. He says "I believe in 1 less shape than you all do".
This argument that "You don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in one more" is extremely weak. As a Muslim, this argument can easily be countered. In Islam, we believe in (1) one God (2) who is eternal (3) he begot no one nor was he begotten and (4) there is no one comparable to god [Quran, Surah/Chapter 112]. If you believe in these 4 aspects, you can take all the 2999 gods and you will realize none of them possess these 4 characteristics. They either have multiple gods attributed to divinity or their gods are just weak and comparable to what we see in this world, limited in power. The God in Islam and the God that Muslims believe in must have the qualities of (1), (2), (3) and (4). If not I reject the religion. As a result, all the 2999 so-called gods and all their associated religions are all rejected and there is only one religion that then carries the truth; the religion that highlights pure monotheism and the oneness of God that was meant for all of mankind.
Total respect for both of these guys for keeping it respectful and not getting angry or feeling like they are being attacked. I wish I could debate people like this
well both were very considerate. The thing is most people have a specific view of atheists and their way of thinking. Often not beein able to understand how someone can be grateful yet have no where to target it to, or to accept that there is just univers nothing less nothing more. I guess Colbert hasn't realy talked like that with an atheist, because most of the time these arguments tend to be about the question weather there is a god or not, not on how do atheists percive the world and answer questions believers often atribute to god.
That's not a good thing. Is it refreshing to meet a serial killer that makes you a cup of tea before he kills you? The difference is only superficial. I do not enjoy falsehoods and deception. Show us your true self. I care not if they are chanting in their living room or on my door step -- or rather, I care equally. Therefore, what I mean to say is, he is only ostensibly different to the crazy believers, not genuinely.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
After this and the golden globes, Ricky was the hero I never knew existed, the hero I definitely don’t deserve, but the one that I need most right now.
It is a shame that what he said in the golden globes wasn't a surprise to the people behind the golden globes. It's all about money 💰. They new the type of things Ricky would say.
Gervais is right and he won and atheists always win any debate because they don't have "faith, beliefs and feelings" behind them, they have FACTS. :) But you should always debate nicely.
Paula G Whyte First of all did you hear him explain agnostics? That means they DO NOT actually know and so it is a Faith based Belief as well. Secondly their science "facts" work against them. To say there is nothing beyond what we can see is ignorant as we only see a super small part what is all around us. It is small minded think you know much of anything when science admits that energy spectrums are infinite in both directions from what we experience. There is a Mind behind everything because it works and is productive and is coded and has meaning and purpose. Denying God is a defense against conscience and/or ego.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@mrd3016 He literally answered HONESTLY... as he believes and feels... and you don't like that?! I mean they can TALK and be civil and NOT hate each other or attack each other... THAT is good. That's called tolerance. You DON'T want to be tolerant?!
Don't pretend that you wouldn't have enjoyed much more seeing them physically assault each other to determine who was right. Like if Ricky had suddenly sucker punched Colbert in the face to get him to confess that once you're dead that's it, then after some messy wrestling on the ground Colbert finally managed to connect a knee to Ricky's groin, and whilst winded he was then forced to state that a divine intelligence does indeed govern all fundamental laws and matter, this way we have both a clear winner and a definitive answer to the question, as well as satisfying our primal urge to see people tear each other apart.
@@NeverlandSystemPunkGirlChloe oogly boogly smiigly wiggly? That's what your words sound like. There is no god. You get that, right? How old are you? 12?
@@TheVideoLounge ACTUALLY I would NOT wanna see them come to blows. I LIKE tolerance, thank you very much. We CAN and SHOULD be able to disagree without coming to fuckin blows yo.
I can respect that view, of course. One hopefully can also see why BITS of the same view might make others feel worse, or frightened, or confused, as well...
It's probably the safest place to debate from and it's a position that even I, as one vehemently against religion, can see as a logical point of view. "I know there's issues with the existence or not of God, I don't believe in every aspect of it and nor can I explain it, my belief stems from a wish to feel secure and comfortable in life". That's not a dangerous point of view, it's not hurting anyone, it's completely within one person.
@@combatwombat2134 Not hurting anyone..... until you indoctrinate your children with the bible from an early age, vote for policies that mirror what you read in your rather immoral book and continue to influence others, both friends and family, to avoid pursuits of knowledge and science in favor of "saving" themselves. Don't be fooled: it's absolutely a dangerous position.... arguably more dangerous than the true religious nuts because at least those nuts are so extreme that it scares people away. I agree that there is nothing *inherently* wrong with belief for the sake of comfort but if we're being practical, the effects are predominantly the same because your belief won't be any "less" if it comes from a place of fear of the unknown/death -- you'll ultimately indoctrinate yourself entirely as there's no true comfort in being on the fence between two positions.
I mean that's how I feel too tbh. Deep down I know I'm an atheist but it feels nice to believe there's some kind of force or being out there with a plan. Praying also feels good because it's basically a form of meditation and, again, offers a semblance of having some sort of control over things that, logically, are completely random. I basically just pick bits from different religions to suit me though, like a buffet. I have no interest in actually joining an organised religion.
AMAZING how they never got personally UPSET or lost their sense of humor....all the while keeping their own perspective and respecting the other's right to see something DIFFERENT. God damn refreshing.
Ricky is far from refreshing. "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." Ricky Gervais Ricky does not know what biblical faith is because he just does not care to know. Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith Ricky can't even explain the start, creation, and yet he acts so smugly. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
@@TonyEnglandUK if you were honest, which you're not, you'd see I gave correct evidence against Ricky and those like you who defend him. You can't get around such evidence so you don't tell the truth
@@2fast2block I criticise you for insulting people and you respond by insulting me. Since you seem keen to promote Biblical faith, I don't see anywhere Jesus telling his followers _"it's good to be rude and insult people while spamming my religion",_ do you?
*I love the people saying colbert had a sensible conversation with ricky! I didn’t realise saying “the devil will be raping you when you die!” was sensible!*
@Laura p Some of my neighbors have a sign on their front lawn, part of which says “ kindness is everything” ; I agree that kindness is great, but do you agree that it also needs to be linked with wisdom? Because sometimes good intentions which have kindness as an intention, can sometimes have a negative effect. Such as : we must be kind to everyone, so we must have a minimum wage of 15 (or 16 or 17) dollars an hour, and then some of the smaller businesses who can’t afford to pay that wage would go out of business resulting in more unemployment.
@@noonespecial4272 Sort of beat me to it. Ricky's comment is basically one of the core messages in Christianity, and most other religions for that matter. It's a shame the simplicity of religions always gets hijacked by humans, and inevitably 'organised', corrupted and/or misrepresented. Ricky shows you don't necessarily have to declare yourself as a Christian in order to 'be' a Christian / lead a Christian life. Which in the scheme of things is probably all that matters.
That’s what religion is supposed to be kindness!! It Is time to put the kind back into humankind! If you’re a good person.. you’re following Gods purpose for his creation not religion an rules If you’re a kind n good person that follows Gods rules without knowing it Peace all! Thanks for your kind comment and God will bless America when America Blesses God again 🙏🇺🇸..with kindness not judging for all lives matter ! From womb to the tomb! Even George Washington said it best which I call the definition of Faith= A Firm Reliance on Devine Providence
onlinedudeman Relax dude we are not attacking the good part, we are attacking the bad part of religion that we REALLY NEED OPPOSITION, look europe the atheist are the majority do a google on it and other thing, the highest quality of life it is on europe.
onlinedudeman Whaaat ?, im trying to say that, with more religion in one society the less is the quality of life, it is just facts, im trying to say that there is no such thing as atheist there is just supernatural believers, it is like afairyest, there is NOT such think, so relax dont need to be upset with us.
Alternative Facts Survivor you fucked up there m8. religion can be described or defined if you will as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." don't get your nickers in a twist .. setting down jim :)
I respect colbert here for not trying to convince him and not diminishing his viewpoint but also providing his own, this is a good debate and we need more of this in today's society!
‘If we took all the holy books and burnt them they wouldn’t come back in a thousand years But if we took all the science books and burnt them in a thousand years they would be back’ Ricky Gervais
You can question them. That's the whole point of science. It's only proven as long as a new theory doesn't disprove it. So if there is/ you have a better explanation than e.g. the Big Bang, go ahead. Try and figure it out for yourself.
@@ayebarberfuckmeup4689 , you misunderstood the point he was making - it was a criticism of the infallibility claim of the church, and their refusal to allow anyone to question their edicts.
@@_thenidefyyoustars , you misunderstand the meaning: he says that he would rather that some things remain unknown for the time being, since we haven't found all the answers yet/ science hasn't advanced far enough, but that we are still free to look for the answers/ do the research, than have all questions answered and explained by religious doctrine that no one is allowed to question.
well they were talking about two different things. ultimately atheism gives you no basis for morality and purpose. without god how can you make sense of everything? how can something come from nothing?
Ricky's argument about destroying the books and having the same science books return was something I had never thought about and I think it's just brilliant
@@InfoStrikeI think you didn't listen carefully. He never said that the religious books could disappear. Like he's not saying that they'll stop existing magically. He's just postulating a possibility that if someone "willingly" destroyed all the religious books. There is no chance that even after 1000 years even if some kind of religion is formed again it would be the same as previous one. Fortunately, that's not the case with science.
@@InfoStrikeHe's saying that if we erased science and all religions, then science will still return as the same science. Religions will return as completely different stories. Christianity would not be the same Christianity. Islam when that return as the exact same Islam. Because science is based on research and evidence and fact, whereas religion is based on storytelling and mythology.
He is a true atheists he is like Im open to the possibility if you can show me proof. That is a reapectable arguement and can argue his point very well. Whether we agree or not.
The 'proof' is to be found in quantum mechanics. ''There is a creative intelligence underlying the field"- Max Planck But, if you dont wish to see or are open to the possibility, something then you wont, you would just be wasting your time.
I was an atheist my whole life until I decided to prove to myself that the resurrection didn’t happen. But I ended up believing that it did happen due to historical documents (secular included). If you actually want to know if God is real, then do some unbiased research and the door shall be open for you. I am now a Christian.
Wow. That’s a fine, christian attitude to have. Brother’s keeper and all that. Ty for proof yet again that godly people can still be assholes. Well done.
This is by far, the best spirited, most refreshing and most intellectually honest debate on this subject with a large amount of viewership. I'm glad that nobody hurled personal attacks against each other, there was no circular arguing and the host never sensationalized the audience. Although I desagree with Stephen's position, I sure do appreciate his ability to conduct a civil debate.
@@Terry-nr5qn it's not really meant to be a argument and if it was it would still beat whatever a religious person would argue considering they literally just believe in a myth😂
Sunrider It is actually. For example hundreds or maybe even thousands of people are potentially my father yet only one of them is actually my father. And it’s the same thing with religion according to people of faith. Many religions are potentially true but only one of them are actually true. So saying i just reject one more then you do isn’t really a good argument. I believe there are much better arguments for the disbelief in God then that.
It's not very strong because monotheistic God is the greatest thing there is, while pagan gods can be killed or disobeyed and don't have absolute power over everything. The majority of people in the world believe in one God, the ultimate entity. There's no competition with pagan pantheons and folk gods.
Are you telling me the monotheistic God’s of all religions are the same? Of course not. So when you compile the list of Gods, whether it’s 3 or 3,000, the argument still applies. You believe in yours and not the others. An atheist simply believes in one less….whether it’s 3 or 3,000. “They will never understand” is as arrogant a comment as I can imagine. When will you understand that God and Santa Claus are equally as tangible?
@@funstuff5675 I’ve never witnessed a religious person make a compelling argument for belief of any gods. We know why they can’t. Frustrating to witness the delusion. I try to be polite and respectful of peoples religions but it can be very difficult in the face of such nonsense
@@JohnFromAccounting The majority of religious people in the world select the most-popular god in their nation and dismiss all others without even reading what they have to say. Bearing in mind what your religion warns you about lying, tell me how many other religions' holy texts you've read besides yours.
@@arbestcrontisb4248 not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, you're missing this. In order to make a point, it should be a complete thought. If its interrupted, then the person isn't listening which effectively means you're wasting your breath.
@@davibrass if i understand your argument there is no point in waisting our time on something we both already know....no? Might sound rude but that's how it works when you talk with somebody...
@@arbestcrontisb4248 There's also the fact that during a debate both sides are unlikely to change their minds, it's usually meant as a public demonstration to prove/show other people and persuade an audience, an interruption both gives an unfair advantage to one person and is relatively rude (which I personally don't mind)
@@arbestcrontisb4248 my takeaway Is if you ask a question, listen to the answer without ASSUMING you know the complete thought. If you're a host, be polite. Besides, that host found that he was being outsmarted and that's the reason he interrupted so that he can try to discredit Gervais
What i love about this conversation is that they are not actually attacking or disrespecting each other beliefs, the actually listen, and that´s something we are not used to these days when talking about a controversial topic such as religion
One of my favorite people, he explains his thoughts so throughly and with such a good point, I quote him all the time when I talk to someone about religion
Let God say a word to Ricky from His Book "The Bible" his words 40 The Lord said to Job: 2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” 3 Then Job answered the Lord: 4 “I am unworthy-how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. 5 I spoke once, but I have no answer- twice, but I will say no more.” 6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm: 7 “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 8 “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? 9 Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? 10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. 11 Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at all who are proud and bring them low, 12 look at all who are proud and humble them, crush the wicked where they stand. 13 Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. 14 Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you. Job 1Then Job replied to the Lord: 2“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ 5My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”
@@PaulOReilly712 You're quoting from a religious book. There are thousands of religious books, all full of supernatural claims. It's not an argument winner. It's just a quote from a book.
TF 2020 He isn’t hearing him out though. He asks this same question to all of his atheist guests and uses fallacious reasoning, without ever addressing their points.
Olga Sven Is this a joke? Can you point to conversations that Stephen has that aren’t civil? Rubin is a fraud. He’s been exposed for his idiocy lately.
He would probably be the zealot rallying for heretics to be hanged in that bygone epoch of religious eminence. Ironically, Atheists are much like religious zealots in all but differences in epistemology. They feign civil indifference, but really they would hang sensible theists like myself if they had the power. Just look at the Soviet Union or Mao's China to see how Atheists deal with heretics. Now get off your high horse
You're talking about Ricky right? He's not wicked smart... He made blatantly false statements about science and how it works.... Science is constantly changing.
@@simonjones3845 this forte is being braindead. "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." Ricky Gervais Ricky does not know what biblical faith is because he just does not care to know. Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith Ricky can't even explain the start, creation, and yet he acts so smugly. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
@Dawson Davis it’s not forcing, because the children will have their own choice. I grew up with religious parents who taught me their fate and I don’t follow it anymore
Daniel Goleš very bad choose of words my fried....life as a mortal man or woman is very very short... life after is for eternity for the true believers and real followers ofJESHUA!
@@stefanmacdonaldbrown6823 Sorry you have to hear this from me but Santa Claus doesn't exist... Same goes for afterlife, god, angels and other fictional characters...
The premise of going about it is the crucial difference. “How?” - is the objective of science. “Why” - is the objective of philosophy and religion. We see it in this debate.
@Blind Brazilian Tex Atlantis tf? What you're saying is that answering why is basically like answering how, completely contrary to philosophy. 'Why' is contingent on reason, 'how' on the other hand depends on matter and what made things come together, ex: the process in which something occurs is how it occurs, not why. Edit: why something exists, isn't how it exists. Sure you need to explain how it came into matter, but why it exists requires reason, "how" Doesn't explain that. The origin of reason, as most philosophers of science would say, is most likely god.
This civilised, respectful, knowledge based, challenging debate is exactly what is needed at this time..the problem is it is easier to cancel than study, listen and reflect.
And there are believers in this comment section who agree with you, because they are saying (on the basis solely of that concession) "Clearly Colbert cannot be a believer". It seems they're proud of being immunised against reasoned argument.
Pav: He might have said it was a good point but it was not a good point science has been wrong many many times when they step out of bounds on the unprovable, so the science would not all come out the same,unless that also proclaimed the falsehoods as the same.thanks
Jo man you are stupid lol science doesn't claim to know it all, it is the gathered peer reviewed evidence. Thinking like you would result in zero technology, agriculture, etc. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, it's the very reason for advancement u like religion who assume they know everything unlike science.
I enjoyed this because each of them respected each other and didn't try to talk over and tell the other one that they were wrong. Personally I am atheist but I have nothing against those who believe in religion. I have multiple friends that are religious, the thing is, I don't bring up the fact that we are different in beliefs because who really cares. If someone has a good heart and good intentions why would we stop being friends just because of our differentiating opinions. Have a nice day everyone :)
My thing with religion is that you must arrive and embrace it on your own accord; no one else is allowed to dictate your thoughts or spirituality and people/families that drill conjecture into children with no oppurtunity for free-thinking is bullshit. It's like you said; the problems occur when the idealism, religious or otherwise, is forced down your throat. I am personally agnostic, and I know many people whose faith gives them strength and makes them better to those around them. I think we can all take a page from the Buddhists and focus on harmony and balance because if humanity doesn't find a way to co-exist now then we'll likely keep killing each other for what we aren't, instead of celebrating what we are.
Yeah! I agree, a lot of religions have many rules or standards to live by that just seem like common sense in a way. Like being nice or not lying, all things that humans have mutually agreed are morally correct. :)!
I love seeing a debate like this: where one person makes a claim against the other, and the other replies sincerely with "that's good." They have different views and respect each other equally. It's very refreshing.
Ryan O but it’s fun and interesting to debate with people, why else would humans do it? Doesn’t matter if it’s pointless, you writing your comment was pointless and me writing this is pointless but it’s fun and interesting.
It's not a debate, a debate is when two people debate a subject and use facts and reasoning to argue a point, there is no debate here because Ricky has facts aka science and Stephen has nothing but a 2000 year old ideology
Logic is a little bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are receiving me properly? Your ears are green.
Helder Pinto lol, no it doesn't 😂What world are you living in?! I will quote mark twain for you: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how Stephen happily acknowledges when Ricky Gervais makes a good point.
True. But his arguments aren't good in the apologic Field.
For instance: his argument about. There are millions of God's how do you know your God is the real one.
Here's the thing, there are millions of scientific theories, how do we which one is the right one?
Truth and evidencial basis.
There is historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and there are many good cases made by Dr. Lincona, Gary habernas, even Athiest scholars such as gurd Ludemann attest that, the evidence points to the fact the disciples must have seen something, and he goes on to make the point that, regarding the evidence the disciples claimed that something was the risen Christ.
Otherwise, the strong testimonial evidence for martyrdom and the rise of Christianity wouldn't have a good evidencial explination.
All the best.
@@reshearchisgood6966 Well put.
@@reshearchisgood6966 There are no historical records besides from some Greek historians who mentioned some Messiah or some shit who was killed and nothing happened after that, no Earthquake e.t.c. Second of all, scientific theories are all accepted if they transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory. Nice try though.
Noah's Ark 100% didn't exist, so didn't Adam and Eve otherwise we would have all kinds of mutants running here from incestous relationship.
@@reshearchisgood6966 Nope : there are millions of theories in science, but they all point out to the same result, this is how we can know. If there are not pointing out to the same result, it means we don't know yet, or we are not studying the right thing, ergo it is just an hypotesis so far.
@@buzz1251 hello my friend I hope you are doing well let's get started:
Claim 1: "no historical records besides greek historian who mentioned a killed Messiah or some S**t"
I love you bro, and you are more knowledgeable than me.
But by the fact you say "or some S**t" indicates you might have not done research on the topic (or you might have I guess I will find out in your next reply)
The evidence for the resurrection is a cumulative case, with the core documents being:
1. the letters of Paul if you add the witnesses in his letters (I have evidence for this if you want to talk about it)
It adds up to 513 witnesses of the risen Jesus Christ.
Next we have
The four gospels:
2.Matthew
3.Mark
4.Luke
5.John
Next
Extra-biblical sources:
6.the gospel of Peter
7. The annuals of roman historian Tacitus
8. Joseph's testimonium flavinum.
9.Ignatius.
10.Irenaeus of Lyon.
11.Turtulian
12. Dionysius of Corinth
13. Eusebius:
Now their is chruch tradition from Eusebius In Ecclestiacial History. he was simply passing along a tradition which has been the unanimous opinion of the church for two hundred years. Attested by scholars for reliability.
And others.
Your claim that no records besides some greek historians mentioning some Messiah my friend is false.
Claim 2. Scientific theories are only accepted when transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory.
Again you are more knowledgeable than me.
And I agree with this claim but it doesn't refute my argument
For instance: in the last century the universe was believed by the consensus to be infinite, so it's fits your criteria, However is it correct?
Given The BVG therom by Alexander Vilenkin it shows any expanding universe cannot be past eternal therefore shows a universe cannot exist on necessity of its own nature.
Now the consensus of scholars do not believe in an eternal universe.
That theory is one of many that have passed your transitional criteria and because of future evidence Been proven Wrong.
Now I'm going to copy and past this section of this comment and comment it to the guy who commented after you because he literally said a similar thing.
My point is that in the same sense we can prove or disprove certain religions my position is Christianity is true given the evidence and all the others are fake.
I respect and love Ricky Gervais but he doesn't know what he is talking about.
All the best.
Two people with different views having a sensible conversation. How refreshing
Karengulu Until you come to the cesspool that is the comments section hahah
That was the most friendly, informative, and warm debate that I've ever seen.
It was a very odd conversation considering that it's 2017. It would've been full of PC triggered bullshit with everyone else.
William F Buckley Jr is turning over in his grave now that Trump is president.
Tim Thompson
As an atheist I appreciate Stephens will to discuss this topic on tv, most tv host are afraid to.
Edit: some of you guys have missed my point, nobody is 100% sure if there is a god, just be compassionate to each other.
Stephens sounds like he has to win this argument though he's just being a nice host
What do you believe was before the "Big Bang"
@@editname8959 I don't know, nobody does, probably colossal amounts of energy and matter colliding. But I'm no cosmologist.
edit name
*There is no “before” the Big Bang. That is a meaningless question like what it North of the North Pole.*
@@PhysicsGuy1000 Time started with the big bang. I like Stephen Colbert, but when he talks about this, it just really sounds dumb. Was Stephen watching "Doctor" Frank Turek, and thought to himself "Wow, this fellow really has some new ideas." In other words, Stephen sounds very, very dumb, like Frank Turek.
Ricky is a very very clever man, he presents himself as an ordinary bloke (which he is), but he has a sharp intellect and wit to match. He doesn’t suffer fools and is very happy to debate. What a civilised debate. Well done gents!
I'd love to see an hour long debate between these two on religion. This was civil, humorous and respectful of the other person's opinions.
Well he does have a UCL degree in philosophy
I think also because he got famous when he was like 39? Maybe even older. So he truly knows what it's like to be a normal guy
I'm an atheist but I do like Stephen's point that he has a strong desire to direct his gratitude towards something. I think that explains a lot about religion and why every civilisation and every country throughout history has had a religion to follow.
Any good comedian has to be ridiculously smart. It's not a profession for those with mediocre IQs.
I love how Stephen actually appreciated and admired Ricky’s responses rather than try to cut him off with an argument.
Why would you admire a logical fallacy though? Ricky's last point is a textbook case of begging the question.
@@angusmcculloch6653 And from an Atheist congrats on having the most Scottish sounding name ever 😎
@@Bruce-vq7ni Hahaha. Thank you!
@@angusmcculloch6653 nice one! I missed that... even though science is incredible and you can see how the same formulas could pop up again if we erased them, you have to assume the conclusion to make the claim that a Holy book wouldn't resurface.
@@angusmcculloch6653 It really speaks for itself. Count the number of gods there have been throughout history and how many religions were based on that god. It numbers three thousand at the very least. Since "god" is supposedly the ultimate entity that means - also at the very least - two thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine of those gods were simply human inventions. If you destroyed their holy books, Ricky is totally correct in saying those books wouldn't return just as they were. That also means - at the very most - only one god and one holy book WOULD come back just as it was, which is as unlikely as it is unconvincing.
You know, that’s how every conversation between an atheist and a believer should be. Coherent, respectful, amicable and in gratitude for the interaction. Well done, gentlemen.
Hector De Jesus .....science and religion actually work in harmony, they are not pitted against each other.
@@sfender2182
Please explain to me how ancient ideology based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of the universe caused by sheer ignorance and perpetuated by willfully and actively denying new information "works in harmony" with a methodology based on an ever growing understanding of the universe by constantly updating its information about it through constant investigation.
Please tell me why you are so incredibly behind the times that you even come up with this BS argument.
Yes, Hector.... we all understand you drug addicts want to be treated like normal people....
You could also just take a broom and get rid of all these egg shells....
@@WilbertLek Good work, Wilbert.
@@toddsleezer3580 Your opinions are every bit as bad as the religious people you're condemning. Trying to "convert" them until they believe the same things you do is as bad as religious people doing the reverse.
“If you took all the holy books and other works of fiction” - slipped that one under the radar 😂
haha didnt notice that one
😂😂😂😂
well they are works of fiction
@@SwayneIII what?
@@SwayneIII Gah no stop I'm a Christian myself and I'm speaking from experience when I say arguing about religion online isn't gonna get anyone anywhere. It's just not worth it.
"You don't believe in 2,999 gods, and I don't believe in just one more". That's absolutely fantastic. I love that quote! I also love how Ricky quickly pointed out the pointless question of "why", and navigated the question towards "how", right from the get go. Fantastic.
Absolutely - as is the point about if we lost all books in 1000 years all science books would be exactly the same yet all religious texts would be completely and totally different. Maybe similar stories (a chosen one, virgin birth, etc) since those stories exist in hundreds of different religions, almost all of which were before christianity.
The fact is he acts like he’s a bit daft but you won’t find many people more intelligent than he is. Class act of a bloke
@@ross-carlson yup. If any religion was the truth from their all powerful deity, it would have existed since...well, before humanity. The Bible, or the belief in the Christian God, would have existed always. Like, if the Christian God is real, and there's no other gods or anything and people need God's word to get into their fantasy happy place, we'd have known since day 1. But we haven't. The Bible was created by the Roman empire shortly after Christianity became the state religion. And there's religions all throughout time, and all different and all made up bullshit.
Also we have proof of the big bang and can measure that proof through the cosmic background radiation. So stephan colbert saying it can't be proven or were just talking someone's word for it (and equating acknowledging our current understanding of the universe with faith based brainwashing is just horrible intellectually. It's shallow and underhanded, but religion needs these tactics to continue the conversation)
feel sorry for you
Americans can't even find their right father's. No wonder you struggle to find the right God.
I hope all debates are like this. Not too aggresive, not too passive either.
@Monkey D. Luffy the formal definitions of debate and dialogue would disagree with you, but if you mean from the standpoint of which one is usually less hostile, then sure, a dialogue would likely be preferable.
I found it pretty astounding that Stephen questioned the validity of science and used that as an argument when all the people on the left are doing is glorify science (as long as it serves their agendas). It shows that he doesn't shy away from strawmanning when his defences have no effect on his debate partner.
Well, I will not 'glorify' Numbers 31:17, as it currently is.
@@chrissonofpear1384 nice try, but you can take anything out of context and it will sound bad. Read the whole Numbers chapter 31 and it is clearly stated they are at war. Worse things have happened when at war throughout history. Don't be that guy who's like the media these days taking things out of context and putting it out there 🙂
@MAD GRUMPYMAN what I believe in or not is irrelevant. Debate by definition is a formal discussion on a particular topic where arguments are put forward, no matter how rational or irrational it is to a particular person outside of that debate. I'm sure you've seen or have friends debate about which movies/games or whatever fictional medium is better and why. No one's going to question whether you're rational/irrational about debating those kinds of topic. It just so happens you're someone who finds one side of this debate irrational, and that's fine.
"That's really good."
Here's what you don't often hear from your opponent in a debate.
It was his reaction to the audiance. They where going crazy in the background.
Touche. Good obs man
@@CouldAskYouTheSame Still, not everyone reacts as gracefully.
Not sincerely anyway.
Especially when it comes to religion
I appreciate that when Ricky gave a reasonable response to Stephen's rhetoric, Stephen actually listened and accepted the responses. Doesn't happen very often in religious debates.
Two people exchanging conflicting beliefs and even applauding the other's presentation of their belief.
That's because he was dead f****** right and there's no counter to that point LOL
@@Omegatonboom I'm an agnostic myself but Stephen's _"And then......... Satan would be raping you"_ was just superb.
@@TonyEnglandUK I thought it was lame. 🤷♂️😂
Like he couldn't come up with something better to say.
Oh well
@@Omegatonboom same.
Proof that you can disagree with someone and remain civil. I am so sick of people attacking others verbally, physically, and financially because they choose to have a different belief or opinion.
People usually go into attack mode when they don’t have a rebuttal.
Because you are reading UA-cam comments. Not actually listening to real one-one conversations.
@@vika0194 Ah yes the terrorist attacks that happen on youtube, the taking away rights of women because of religion stems from youtube lmao
*"You don't believe in 2999 Gods, I don't believe in 1 more"*
I had to go back and listen again cause man that was really good argument. Respect Ricky!
Idk about u but I'm taking notes from this video 😂
It is no argument whatsoever. It is a very poor attempt to try and show that the believer is also an atheist just like him, but it's false. An Atheist doesn't believe in ANY Gods. He believes in one. So he is not an atheist in any way shape or form. You can't be an atheist towards 300 Gods and not be an Atheist in regards to one God... because then you are not an atheist.
@@jamesemerson4102 At no point did Ricky claim that Colbert was an atheist...
A monotheist can easily say: oh yeah, some of those pagan Gods were probably real. They were either angels sent by God to spiritually prepare humans for the full revelation, or demons sent to confuse and distort
@@jamesemerson4102 His may not be an argument, but religions completely denying and contradicting each other, ridiculing one another's existence is one hell of an argument to make..
Actually impressed and pleased that Stephen acknowledged a point of Ricky’s that he thought was salient. Giving credit where it’s due is a lost art!
Bruh. Both hate god. Period.
It’s a really good point I never thought about! If god did write the Bible and then disappeared for what 2000+ years now, the belief system would only restart if he did exist and rewrite it again. We as a society don’t need a belief system to create a kingdom/country anymore. So it would be an interesting turn of events if someone created a new belief system just to do it.
@@YokedGirthZ The Bible itself says the word of God is written on the hearts of mankind (conscience). The attributes of the Holy Spirit (AKA God) (1 of 3 God Heads that Stephen believes in) are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control. If you destroyed the Bible stories would be lost. However, much of it would survive in the natural conscience of all humanity. Also the theoretical game is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. Ricky says IF all the books were destroyed. Well if Christ is truly the son of God and God is all powerful. Then if He is truly God, He would not allow his instruction manual and stories of His love for us be destroyed. Hitler tried to destroy books such as these. Probably could have done it but he failed. So the IF game is silly. It hasn't happened. So what's the point in saying IF? That's the same logic he accuses people of spiritual belief to use. Love and respect for both. Just sharing thoughts
@@JustHuman87 God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or
He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able.
If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God;
if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God;
if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God;
if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
@@YokedGirthZ thats a toddler's logic
Wow, I'd never heard the one about the books being burned. That is a great analogy.
It occurred to me in middle school that an alien landing on a version of Earth that is identical to ours but without bibles, would never in a million years come up with the Judeo-Christian creation myth as the reason for Earth's existence. I wrote a paper on it, made my teacher real mad.
@@MamaSymphonia Humans were the same as aliens when they first arrived on Earth. So humans are historical proof that in a short period of time they would come up with that myth over and over again. Nearly every culture in history believed in gods that were responsible for the natural world. If they were unique throughout all time it would imply that there was something specific about their time period that led them to those conclusions. Since as pointed out in the video, the science is likely not to have changed, it would suggest that something else was giving the people of that time period the impression that there were powerful people more similar to them than the animals that they could not see.
@@nottyseel949 There is no evidence for any of the gods that have been invented by man though. Their invention is prevalent because we're all human and have a tendency to imagine things being done by an agent. And it's really easy to invent a powerful agent that is capable of doing things like throwing lighting bolts (Zeus, for instance).
But an alien landing on this planet would never reconstruct the specific legend of Zeus from the available natural evidence. They would never come to the conclusion that a God sent his only son to die for human sins to save them from an eternal torment that the God created in the first place. Outside human culture and the religious texts they produced, there is no physical evidence of any of these supernatural tales, whether Zeus or Jesus. And therefore no good reason to believe they happened.
@@MamaSymphonia Sure, fam. I don't really care about any of that it does not serve any purpose to deny or support what you or anyone thinks, I just think that the point you are making cancels out the point you are making.
You imply that some creatures that you do not know exist (aliens of a sort for which you have no reference) would never do in a million years what history proves happened in the only similar creatures that we know of (assuming you meant aliens that would have similar brain function to humans not as in animals). You even said that humans have a tendency to attribute events to an agent. If it is a tendency then it is likely to happen again if you run the experiment again. I'm not talking about or interested in Judeo-Christian myths, but specifically the point you are making.
@Scott Scotty Sounds like the assumptions people made up when they made up the various gods they believed in. Whatever makes you assume aliens would be any sort of intelligent in the way we think of intelligence is probably the same reason people assumed there were other creatures like humans in other realms/dimensions. Could be true as any other complete guess, but the likelihood is, that like the other billions (trillions?) of species of life that we KNOW to exist, aliens are likely not to care about any of these questions or ideas. They are evidently more likely to just eat, sleep, mate, and pay no attention to life or space outside of their immediate environment like every other form of life we know. Humanoid brain patterns could be popular, but we have no evidence to suggest we should assume humans are not a complete anomaly even thinking about the universe and existence in the first place.
I've never seen Colbert struggle so much with an interview. He really looked like he was having a hard time not getting emotional.
You can tell both of these guys were holding back about a topic that's extremely important to them. Gervais was more in his element I think.
Sabbath is no longer for us to keep, otherwise we would ruin the 6th commandments, which says: DO NOT KILL!
Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: it is the sabbath or the 6th commandment. Cant have both.
Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should:
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
@@theharshtruthoutthere Also: Earth is 6000-10000 years old.....according to the same book.
@@theharshtruthoutthere one slips through the cracks every time.
@@theharshtruthoutthere Your comment here is a perfect example of where religious people overstep the mark. You said _"Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should:"._ You're simply attempting to project your beliefs onto others as if it were mandatory and it isn't. Religion has gotten away with that mandate for centuries.
@@EvoraGT430Catholics don’t believe in new Earth creationism, widely rejected in fact. Only biblical literalists, mostly Baptists, believe in new-Earth, as well as the growing problem of the evangelical movement
Somehow I can't picture Fallon having a conversation like this with one of his guests...
Lorenzo Reyes lol
Hell, the last 7 words of your sentence were redundant.
They'd be busy smashing eggs on their heads.
He'd randomly start clapping and burst into laughter
Ricky: "God"
Fallon: hahahaha
Now that is a way to have a civil conversation on a controversial topic. Thumbs up
I like how Gervais responded. He did a lot better than Bill Maher who acts like everybody who is religious is stupid.
Joseph TotalFestTime!!! I can see why BIll Maher's attitude would turn people off. I'm not the greatest fan of his myself and I think it's for that reason. I actually like him best when he's just being pure logic without the posturing because it's then that his emotional, logical, and social intelligence shine through in a way that is just beautiful to see from someone who has a voice in society.
I get the sense from seeing how different he is when appearing on other peoples' shows that his posturing, arrogant attitude is more of a "character" than anything. And in fairness, he is standing up to some people who are really staunch and arrogant in the opposite direction of beliefs. So maybe that's why he feels it's necessary to be that way about it.
And I'd venture to say there is something of a double standard going on when it comes to atheists versus theists. Theists who are arrogantly confident in their beliefs (in my experience) get a lot less flak for it than atheists do. An atheist acts a little aggressive, pushy, or even just overly confident about being an atheist and they are accused of being arrogant, rude, etc. A believer does the same and we call them a preacher and give them a microphone.
It doesn't help that thematically, atheism is usually rooted in an exercise in logic, whereas theist belief is usually rooted in faith (an emotional kind of belief). And it's really easy to sound and be arrogant when it's logic versus emotion. Many of us would probably end up sounding a little arrogant and patronizing if we said "it's not raining outside" and someone insisted that it is, despite the sensations showing that when you go outside, you don't get wet. And I think that's how it can end up feeling for many atheists, is like it's as obvious as whether it's raining outside; the evidence isn't there. But then we are supposed to be nice to the people who believe it's raining outside and tell them that they can think what they want, and we will be respectful of what they believe. And that can be really hard to do.
TransparentLabyrinth
All that logic sounds impressive until you remember that neither the existence of matter nor the origin of matter can be explained logically.
I've never heard any atheist explain how matter came to exist out of a void.
earl campbell Well to be fair, the rain analogy I gave may not translate exactly, as there are senses we can use that tell us without question whether it's raining or not (as analogies go, it's not the most accurate I've ever made). That being said, atheism has no special obligation to explain existence in any way, shape, or form, and that's a point that is often confused. Atheism is, at its most basic, the lack of belief in a god, or gods. Deism says there is a creator and they don't interfere. Theism says there is a creator and they intervene in some way.
Deism and Theism are explanations for where the universe came from. Atheism is not... it's just disbelieving the claims about there being a divine creator. Agnosticism is (strictly speaking) the belief that it is fundamentally unknowable whether a god, or gods, exist or not. To further complicate things, agnosticism is also often used casually to describe a sort of "fence-sitting" position, where one isn't quite sure whether they believe in a god or not and can't be bothered to make a strong decision about it.
The point of all of this is, if you encounter an atheist who has an explanation for how the universe came into existence, it is not a "teaching of atheism." It is an explanation that an atheist has that has nothing to do with atheism itself. Most atheists probably have mixed opinions about how the universe came into being and many probably don't have a strong opinion about it at all. The only thing atheists have in common that pertains to atheism itself is that they aren't buying the "god / divine creator" explanation.
If you take a step back from it and you compare the phenomenon of atheism to, say, belief about whether the patriots won the most recent superbowl, you might think that the whole complex naming of different positions on the matter is rather absurd. But we've reached this point of complexity because so many people take it so seriously, this question of where we came from. It is perhaps the most burning question our species has.
TransparentLabyrinth
Obviously, I respect your intellect & writing ability.
Someone with your IQ knows what I'm getting at with my previous comment. You're also aware that some of us theists are not idiots.
If God exists, but has no desire to be scientifically proven yet,...
Peace and good will to you.
I may not agree with Stephens's point of view but i respect the fact he is willing to have a conversation on TV.
Gada101
Exactly how I felt. Although I don't agree with Stephen, this did not lower my respect for him
+
Me three! Especially the question "how can something come out of nothing" invites that kind of speculation and debate which is fun, not destructive. To get there within a 5 minute time slot is pretty bold.
Gervais makes some good points to be sure. Take his example about holy books vs scientific facts. But in my mind, the two aren't competitive at all. They are on two different planes.
Take a thesis about microbiology vs beethoven's 5th symphony. Both describe some type of order: one about order of biological science, one about arrangement of tones from various instruments. I would be willing to say that BOTH are works of genius. And both DEFINITELY exist in a real way. But if you tried to determine the existence of Beethoven's 5th by the standards of microbiology, you might be forced to conclude the symphony doesn't exist. Same goes the other way around.
They exist FAR OUTSIDE the realms of one another. You couldn't judge microbiology based on principles of music, and vice versa.
The same goes for God. He is SO FAR OUTSIDE the realms of music, of microbiology, etc, that to expect to find perfect conclusive evidence of him in one of those fields is very strange to me. Instead, He (God) leaves clues in those fields. Which, if I'm honest, makes getting to know Him WAY more interesting and FUN!!!
Its called evolution, the universe has been around for billions of years. We so happen to be on a planet that is the perfect distance between a star for life to form and evolve. And sure the ink dots on a paper showing notes can exist, but unless people who understand music can translate it and play it, its just a piece of paper with scribbled ink. Lets take nature for example if you can make a formula translating certain trees that look certain ways into notes, you now have trees creating music. How a mind can take information and translate it what ever way you want is called imagination, does not have to exist but in the mind it can.
I have to say he explains himself well and speaks calmly and respectfully. 👍🏻
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
They talked about religion calmly and from the heart without getting in a hissy fit
na ricky is just right lol
krillins moustache he’s right and there is no need to get mad. The book example is perfect.
I disagree mate, one of them talked calmly and with logic and reasoning the other had nothing to say to back up their claims and resorted to joking their way out of the debate.
Burn in hell sinner! 😇
That's just called being an adult. Sounds crazy i know but everyone should try it at some point in their life.
Binge watching all the Ricky Gervais clips after the Golden Globes
yup
@Liam O’Neil get ready for several weeks of hilarity and enlightenment 👌
Bro you‘ve been missing out if you haven‘t watched him by now lmao enjoy it you‘re in for some treats!
Lol
@@thegreathutt Dude honestly I feel like I've been straight up deprived until now
Just when I thought Ricky was going to be beat down, he says something like that at the end. Great job.
yeh he was referring to the holly wood pedo stuff thats what he meant when he said thats why im a good boy ;) ua-cam.com/video/sR6UeVptzRg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=FireFilms
12 12 no
@@robertdavis4313 why the hell would mary appear as a static image in lava
@@robertdavis4313 wow your threshold for evidence is ridiculously low - I have a bridge I want to sell you..
I 100% believe in Rickys theory with science existing again after 1000years and no literature to back it up. However, I think it’s sort of ignorant to not think religion wouldn’t rebound again in the same amount of time. it’s made up, someone will make it up again. I mean, just take Scientology for example, it was brought to life within the last 100 years and has a devoted following.
This is so refreshing and we need so much more of this type of discourse. Atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, and others who don't believe in a God or gods remain largely misunderstood and discriminated against in the U.S. and throughout the world. Thank you for producing and sharing this great discussion.
I'm nearly 70. When I was young, here in England, practically everybody went to the Church of England every Sunday. It was an accepted part of life. In 2023, over ninety-nine percent of the population *_don't_* go. I don't know what the figures are for America but I think the world is finally walking around all religions.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 According to atheist religion, What is wrong about genocide?
Should we ask mao?
@@MilitantAntiAtheismatheism is not a religion, nor is it a moral code. It is a simple disbelief in the existence of a God.
In the UK, atheism is practically the norm now.
@@aurademon Atheist religion claims that men can give birth.
Islame claims that women have semen production near their neck.
What is the _difference_ between atheist religion and islame?
Honestly, one of the reasons I like Steven: he's not afraid to challenge his guests in actual discussion. And to talk about atheism on a main channel network is so big, introducing new ideas to people who may not have thought about them before.
It's hard to believe the notion that there might NOT actually be a man in the sky controlling everything, and brings people he likes up there with him after they die is something that most people may not have thought about before.
Dude, I do not know about you roryl, but I had a talk with the big guy in the sky yesterday when I prayed. Yea, he was like "Hey man, what the heck are you all doing down their? I sent Donald Trump to be a clown, not your President! Don't make me send my only begotten son back down there!"
But I thought god decided to make people vote for him? Because its his plan right?
The producers allow this sort of thing, not the host.
And people say Stephen is a one trick pony....
"If you destroyed every holy book, and waited a thousand years, they wouldn't all come back and be exactly the same. If you destroyed every bit of science we have, and waited a thousand years, it would come back exactly the same." - That is one hell of an argument.
yeah, was brilliant that bit.
Rakinjo2 It made me reach orgasm.
yes it was brilliant. but i was thinking would the religious people would get a counter logic to this also . and i think they will.
they will say "yes right. thats why we try to save our holy books , because no simple man can write them on its own, only the messenger of god can write that "
If you believe "The messenger of God" wrote the bible, you're probably Muslim and not Christian. :P In Christianity it's a recognized fact that the book is not holy on it's own, and that the first passages of the new testament were written at least half a century after the death of Jesus.
Obviously a lot of modern Christians don't know any of this, because most modern Christians don't actually give enough of a shit about their supposed "Faith" to study it, yet atheists who do, and call it out on it's bullshit, are assholes. Because logic, I suppose.
Pointless online credentials that no one's going to believe anyway: I study Religious Science. (As in, the science of how religions work, and not.. Creationism, or whatever).
yeah except for some holy books, that have scientific truths. I mean I don't know too much about the Quran but it contains the first written statement that the universe if forever expanding. I think that is recurring but started in the Quran.
You know Ricky is a great debater when he, not only answers the question logically, but also questions the validity of the question before answering.
I would say that makes him an adequate debater. Your standards are a bit low IMO.
@@ACharmedEarthling sure, what’s your standards?
He is a terrible debater. He is a comedian
@@ricco48219 He's got a degree in philosophy from University College London. I haven't seen him in a formal debate situation, but I doubt he would be terrible.
@@ACharmedEarthling well I wont say terrible then. However he doesn’t have formal practice. I don’t expect an fresh out of highschool player to dominate freshman year in college either tho so. Lol
I have such respect for both these people. This is how debate could be. It's far too polarising and divisive, lacking nuance and respect. Well done to you both and thank you for a pleasant and fun segment.
i shuld'not be here to yall dum coments but the fake playge did'not get me HAH. but i messd up so many organ delivers for lots of diferent reasons but i dont have to go into that.thank the sistem it dont let them find out that i was the kink in the chaine for 24 to 44 died p.eople but not my problem bcuz why did them people even needed organs in the first place. i did them favors they probz thank me from heavan.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 If you are think that being when can if do that of is where wasn't can be without it. Do when bring is of it can you up is of there? Or can bring when be of that is? ?
Because when they are there is the in of doing with them they are that ones. So if are they that one is you and without then? When do so can if it was there when it will didn't can then how does it went to that before there is on timing inside without them?
Ricky Gervais actually has a degree in philosophy. He can go toe to toe with anyone in a philosophical debate, and is a fascinating person to listen to on the subject.
His arguments are dumb af, I can make the same argument: everyone is a theist he just believes in one less god than the rest. You see how stupid it sounds ?
Jordan Peterson
Ha
@@XcL-Ignites While I like some of Jordan's work, his stance on religion is ridiculous (saying that all atheists are murderers).
I love theology and a philosophical debate would be cool...
Did you know that 150 pair of homosexuals defeated the Spartan army...
And I don't remember the Hebrews forcing anyone to believe in Jehovah, Emmanuel or Melchizedek
One God many names...
What they did do was demonstrate the love and compassion the Lord has for his children...
Their lifestyle was theirs to choose outside of that community...
Even though I am a god-fearing Christian that is the way it needs to be in our nation...
Instead of trying to destroy the Democracy in this country
the Republicans would be busy working at building their communities...
And helping others to do the same and if you don't want to go into a certain community because there's homosexuals there you have that right...
If you don't want to go on certain community that's all minorities you have that right...
If you don't want to go into a community because their all Muslims you have that right...
But the RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY wants to tell all communities how they should live and who they should pray to...
While the evil reds decide some communities don't deserve to live at all...
When the poor won't fight the Red Republicans wars anymore that's when they attack us in our homes financially...
Encouraging us with her money to fight amongst ourselves for crumbs...
This is what the Red Russian Republican party has in store for us...
But like in Russia when you're attacking someone else it's awful hard to build for yourself...
This is what the world needs more of. Respecting each other views and not trying to shove ones
View down the others throat. RESPECT each other!
Views are not worthy of respect, only criticism.
@@eddyeldridge7427 ok boomer
@@AeroZeppelin-rb4pt
I'm a millennial, dipstick. Born in '88.
@@eddyeldridge7427 That's so dumb I can't even fathom an answer. Not respecting views is why the world is so bad.
Leon Trotsky
What makes the world so bad specifically?
Television needs to be more like this, two people having a conversation on a topic they disagree on. Not ending in a war or a fight but with a handshake and respect.
And nobody saying they're better than the other
But he did. He called it all fiction. And he seems to be right.
That's how it's done in most civilised countries
A conversation would mean both contributed something
Life needs to be more like this
Ricky's so damned cool. Love the way he explains things.
I think it’s so cool that all people have a chance to have eternal perfect love and beauty that far, far, exceeds anything that we are able to experience here during our earthly life!! That is heaven; and it goes on forever.
OK Atheists - explain Ricky's possessed cup at 3:53.
You unbelievers never have any answers.
@@sfender2182 i think it's not so cool that the people claim there's a heaven and have no concrete evidence for it yet expect you to change your world view and morals for it
@avonmaster6628
Actually there is a lot of evidence for the existence of heaven. Study Near Death Experiences (NDE). Many have told about these heavenly (and sometimes hellish) experiences. There was also a new movie (towards the end of 2023) about NDE’s titled Near Death; perhaps check it out. A world view based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church is uplifting in many ways. As Jesus taught; love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and others as yourself (others.. as in everyone).
@@TonyEnglandUKunbelievers 😂. Is that an insult?
People forget that Ricky Gervais apart from being a comic, he also has a degree in philosophy.
And that’s his problem, God is real and he has no idea because he’s never given his life to Christ
@@christservant7051 is that why this atheist has had far more success in life than you, a religious person, will ever have? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
@@gordongecko5950 success of what? I’ll have every lasting life. He doesn’t know God and God is not in his heart. He doesn’t have a clue what he believes in that is what an atheist is lol. I follow Gods rule I’m not religious. Religion is a man made thing. If your going to start typing words make sure you come with facts my friend.
@@gordongecko5950 You and him have clearly never read the bible so how can you even have an opinion on something your not educated in. All the fame and success will be burned in hell if he doesn’t repent and give his life to God. He may someday have a change of heart and I pray you and him do.
Cotton Mouth if you believe in god and live under his rules you’re religious you nut
I just think its great that a conversation like this could happen on a late night talk show. Not at all the norm.
I just wish it had been longer, I love the fact they both kept the discussion humorous and respectful.
There's a very interesting longer discussion between Stephen Fry and Craig Ferguson from a good few years back along similar topics. Look out for that one, it's here on YT somewhere.
I find it interesting that these discussions come up so much in the US. Where I live in Scandinavia it is up to yourself if you are religious or not and leave it to others what they want to think or not. Nothing to quarrel about and it is not disturbing the community feeling as a whole. I gather that it has historic reasons that those who were unsatisfied and wanted all to have same believes as them were those who wandered off to the US back in time. And now they are gathered in groups over there all being unsatisfied with each other :)
@@cathal4921 I like discussions between atheists and theists
Not the norm in weird America. Anywhere else in the West, Colbert would keep his religion to himself.
“If we take any holy book, and any other fiction...”
Clever Ricky
clever but not really respectable
how come you happen to be reading my messages, processing it, and then trying to refute me saying there's a purpose by using an organ in your body that's extremely complicated that you use to move your fingers to press these buttons, and your dna more complicated than any man made computer in existence, no matter how far in the future? what made it so you'd be like that and then come here and have emotions that you use to tell me that I'm an idiot with your anger that you for some reason have at something like this?
you guys purposely go to whatever video mentions religion and argue because that's all you do and you never question why or how you're able to
this is not politics but it is treated like it
I'd rather spend my time using my life instead of doing this
@@pixeled9683 isn’t that what ur doing?
@@pixeled9683 The host spent the entire time talking over him, let’s not get into respect here
I love how he lets Ricky talk without interruption. A superb host.
Is that sarcasm? It annoyed me how much he wouldn't let him speak
@@marmalontoast jimmy fallon absolutely trumps every single host with interruption hahahahahah
@@marmalontoast Who wouldn't let who speak? It seemed pretty well handled by both sides to me.
@@marmalontoast I agree 100%, the people who can’t see that either just side with Colbert because his beliefs are their own, or they are the people who constantly interrupt and talk over people lol
@@marmalontoastColbert interrupted one time...which was bad enough, but he didn't do it again.
Not a religious person, but I really like that the dude wasn’t so passive aggressive. This was a nice talk to watch!
Because they're smart enough to understand that nobody really knows, there is no end to these types of conversations so why waste so much of your energy.
I'm an Atheist and talking with a Christian is a waste of energy ⚡
@@SUGAR_XYLER It depends.
@@SUGAR_XYLER
Only a non believer could have the audacity to utter such a blasphemy from their cursed mouths
You do not know the enormity of what you have done child
Pray regularly and be fearful of the Lord for he may forgive your rebellious delinquency
We superior ones won't lower ourselves to be deceived by the likes of you heretics
In this day and age
We can only hope you juveniles to have the luxury of proper guidance
Mr Damnation - I’m assuming that was in jest, but it was still quite scary!
TAKE NOTE PEOPLE!
This is how it's done, discussion and disagreement WITHOUT disrespect.
Jay Flora until Trump become a President then it all a disagreement and disrespect from Colbert
@@charliestringer1665
Well Trump worked hard on deserving that disrespect.
Jay Flora there’s no nice way of telling someone that they are delusional
Most Star Wars fans are probably scratching their heads right now.
Go fly a kite, just kidding.
"You don't believe in 2999 other gods, and I just don't believe in one more."
That is gold.
John 11:25-26
I think it is a copout. The difference between religious vs. non-religious is much greater than between religions. And many religions acknowledge other believers.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist while many don't either and different religions literally show in many ways how faith can be created and interpreted in so many ways that you can never say your religion is the true way of viewing the world or life. Because then you would be debating someone elses faith in something different from yours. If you believe in one god, then why would you believe in other gods that defy the existence of your god?
No it isn't at all. Science is his God, which is made up of multiple types. He makes claims that science would come back the same, yet he knows he has no proof and is making a ridiculously false claim. Science has changed throughout the years and it will continue to do so
@@lloyd8550 I agree, the purely rational person would be agnostic, since science can neither prove nor disprove God. By professing the absolute absence of God, he has just as much faith as a religious person believes there is God.
Ricky is brilliant. Puts the case for Atheism very clearly. Beautiful gentle man.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Those are just words, though. Such words worked for centuries but it's 2023, you have to prove what you are claiming with real evidence. Ricky will be held accountable for his beliefs, will he? What evidence do you have that proves your claim to be true?
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Watch how easy it is to do what you're doing.
_"Ricky is wrong though and he will be held accountable for his beliefs and his decision to lead others away from Allah during the time of judgment. Unless he accepts Allah."_
It's too easy to do this routine for any religion.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g With respect, you're doing it again. You're typing things without attaching any evidence to them. They're just words unless you attach some evidence to prove your words are true. _"And God will honor that"_ you claim. Without typing 500 words of avoidance, prove with evidence that god will do that. And watch how many words you type to dodge providing that evidence.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g You know and I know that the only evidence you have for your claims is _"You read it in an old book."_ - the Bible. And that's a book that Einstein called _"Primitive legend."_ I've been religious. I've been where you are. Telling people _"Believe in Jesus and you will be saved."_ Until someone asked me to produce the same evidence I'm asking you for.
@@user-zv5nu1nf2g ok here's the question.
_"Apart from reading it in a book, what evidence do you have that dismisses all other gods and proves your god created the universe?"_
"If we take any holy book or any other fiction" I love how he snuck that one in there 😅
@@nidashafa9168 That's because it never got destroyed..?
nida shafa whats your point?
@@nidashafa9168 So why did you bring it up if its not relevant to the video?
@@nidashafa9168 Holy texts support some pretty morally abhorrent things, so I wouldn't like them to be used as guidance.
nida shafa oh so you think killing, stealing & raping people is a good moral guidance for people? and I’d like to inform you that there is no proof that the Quran didn’t change throughout these years.
Ricky pulled out two of the best points regarding this topic: atheist don't believe in 1 less god than theists and the universal nature of scientific knowledge. And the way he summed them up was brilliant.
@Mohamud Ahmed First mover gets you to a cause...not a god. And that is still pure philosophy. None of the other disciplines support the notion of god whatsoever.
@Mohamud Ahmed Are you already insulting me? That's how you know you are on the losing side. Put on your big boy pants on and try explaining how a first cause gets you to god.
@Mohamud Ahmed You didn't explain how a first cause gets you to god in any way. Here is the original argument. 1.Everything that exists/begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe exists/began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. That is the first cause philosophical argument...and it doesn't even mention god.
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't think you have a clue...but let's say I give you that argument. God is still pure philosophy and non-existent in reality.
@Mohamud Ahmed God is dead....we killed him like the 999 gods that came before him. If your god is truly real then tell him to come say hello. Pro tip: he won't because he is a fairy tale.
The way he proved that faith in science is logical was brilliant.
But it is not faith. It is confidence based on evidence. Faith is gullibility.
@@ellea3344 So the only claims worthy of consideration are those that have empirical evidence?
@@jeanvandorst4287 Let's turn that around for a second. Are you saying that the ones that don't *are* worthy of consideration? Are unicorns, leprechauns, vampires, etc all up for debate, too?
even the assumptions of the scientific method cannot be proven
With respect, Mr Gervais didn't prove anything whatsoever. Where is the proof exactly? There was none - he simply made the mother of all assumptions (amazingly, unchallenged by the host), which proved to be a good sound-bite.
His comment was received rapturously (as all populist positions are these days), but his argument was astonishingly flawed (please see my post above).
Probably the best thing I seen on UA-cam or anywhere else really. Steven and Ricky are exemplary.
I love how confident the host is in his personal belief, yet he still is respectful in conversation with who he’s hosting.
It's because he's totally brainwashed
@@chrisbuesnell3428 agreed
It’s called indoctrination. He even admitted that he just has a vague sense of gratitude and wants t direct it at something. That is illogical, by definition.
There must be a first cause, which is the Creator
It is impossible for nothing to produce anything
God must have existed before creation
And it must be one, since there is only one will, the cause of everything
Where everything is created
He must have a will, since creater
He must have complete knowledge since He created everything
He must have full power as he created everything
the creation must be out of Creator
Let me give you an example (of course I do not liken myself to God Almighty, but for the sake of clarification)
If I made an invention, for example, a television
Am I going to say it came out of nowhere? Of course not, or I say it does not have a creator, the creator is the inventor
Will I be a part of it? of course not
Do I have a will when I made TV
Will I be fully aware of this TV? Yes
Is my strength in the moment of the television industry superior to the television (if we do not take the factor of time) (because God is outside time because time and space are created)
Yes
Will the Creator create creatures that have a nature and a different creation from the rest of creation (animals) (1 freedom of choice 2 consciousness 3 language 4 mathematics)
Of course, the four virtues of Islam are part of the instinct that God created in man
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, and said, Inform me of the names of these men.
♦ The surah and verse number: Surat Al-Baqarah (31).
name = أسماء
Names mean languages, information, etc
It is the instinct that God has placed in human
Surah At-Tur verse 36
Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?[And] have they created the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no certainty of anything![How could they?] Are thy Sustainer’s treasures with them? Or are they in charge [of destiny]?Or have they a ladder by which they could [ascend to ultimate truths and] listen [to what is beyond the reach of human perception]? Let, then, any of them who have listened [to it] produce a manifest proof [of his knowledge]!
The universe cannot create itself, as if you say that my mother gave birth to herself. This is illogical. Where there is a point of not having it and not having children, so this is stupidity to say that nothing produces anything
You cannot find evidence for it (for example, mathematics cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2 has no evidence, but we believe that it is true and certain without evidence
Likewise, language.
Why does man have language and not like animals, just voices of anger and distress, etc.? A riddle, and we have no evidence for the existence of language. You cannot prove that language is real. You cannot prove consciousness. You can't prove that you are real and exist, not just a dream or illusions
as well as the rest)
That is why humans are different from other creatures
Therefore, these four qualities must have a reason and a judgment
For example, the choice
So we choose to believe or not to believe in God
Language so that there is communication and knowledge of the existence of God
etc
(As well as the build the earth and make it better *)
Therefore, these four characteristics must have a reason
It's not just a blank
who created the Creator
I will simplify an old philosophical principle for you. If I asked you for an Apple and you said to me, I will give you. If the one phiend me gives me, then the one who behind behind me ....... to infinity (Infinity), will the Apple reach me?
No, of course, as well as the universe and everything (the universe and everything) (exist) so there is an end and a final cause we are the product of the first cause so this cuts off the end of the causes
do you have proof that your seventh grandfather exists?
did you meet him
How did you conclude that he exists?
Maybe he came out of nowhere (nothing)
You will say of course not, this is nonsense. No mind accepts it.
you will follow the logic that says that every accident has a cause
Likewise, did the universe come from nothing, or is Allah is the creator?
Now I have explained to you the Creator with logic and reason
away from any religion
But there is a gap. Did God create us and give us the four distinct qualities without benefit?
of course not
This gives the attribute of inferiority (Glory be to God Almighty).
God is perfect
The Messengers sent to every nation prophets,
As Allah said in the Qur'an .
and the last of them was Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace
Is there a religion other than Islam that does not contradict logical arguments?
There is no
The religions and philosophies of Central and East Asia
The Creator is present in all creatures
This is logically wrong
Christianity
(There are 3 gods and at the same time they are one and this is a contradiction)
The Creator regrets creation
The Creator did not know the harvest season
Doesn't know when the hour .
The Creator put a rainbow beside him so that he remembers not to drown the world in a flood. But he drowned them anyway .
God is the creator of the world, how can he be ignorant of something?
He is the creator of everything, he must possess the knowledge of everything
etc
We Muslims use Allah, not God
Because "God " is giving meaning that he is male
This is wrong
there nothing like Him
Allah Almighty
@@chrisbuesnell3428 How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
With all the humor he packs,he's an intelligent and intellectual person with deep insight for everything.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
"Convince me there's a god."
"Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
"That's a question, not an argument."
And a question that can not being answered.
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo So?
An atheist's "I don't know" doesn't make a theist right by default.
You don't win just because you have AN answer.
@@JMUDoc I agree, and for the record I am an atheist.
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo Then why do theists seem to think our ignorance is their evidence? I wish Gervais had pushed this point - Colbert would have run into a wall, conversationally.
@@JMUDoc I have no idea, I think you better ask a theist about that but be warned the answer will probably make no sense.
3:57 I love this man sooooo much ❤❤❤❤ the book burning analogy explains everything ❤❤❤
"But you really don't know that. You're believing because someone told you so."
The Irony in that is unreal.
And i oop-
But then Ricky made his point right after.....
It's a ridiculous statement because everything you can be told scientifically is objective, tested, reviewed and falsified, and this prat says he believes in a god just because he wants to direct his gratitude towards something, what a moron
yeah it just set into stone the fact that stephen colbert is a complete idiot
It's not ironic. It's an attempt by theists to claim that science and religion are on equal footing. That we "blindly" follow Newton. They aren't, of course. They skip the burdon of proof Newton had to meet and don't acknowledge the community that set the bar and accepts his proof when the bar is met.
So nice to see Stephen is open minded enough to agree Ricky has a good point with the science book/religious book destruction example
It is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
comparing science to history is stupid. (if you read the Bible, it contains a lot of historical relevance, for example Nero. He existed just as Jesus did, it's proven that he did, I'm not talking about his miracles, only talking about the man that existed.) If history books were destroyed, you wouldn't find out all that stuff again, because they're not laws of nature, they're stories, things that happened in the past. So if there's nobody who lives in those times and there are no recordings of any kind of that time, we have no idea what that time was like. Science is different from history.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Daniel Phan How convenient to just willingly give all those properties to a creator. If I didn't know how the universe began, and wanted to give all the credit to a supernatural being, timeless/all powerful/beginningless are all properties I would as ascribe, as well. What a flawed concept. The easy way out. The belief without evidence, perhaps even in spite of, will never be a system I wish to partake in. And as an adult human being with the ability to understand complex thought, you should be ashamed for participating in such childish thinking
His point is about as valid as comparing Newton's work and saying that WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen that way again. They are very different and it is a flawed comparison at its based. It has always been a flawed comparison. on top of that, many religions share themes despite being completely different. The say a new mono-theistic religion would not surface that is similar to Christianity is a complete lack of understanding of history.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens
God is not believed to be true without evidence.
@@mohannadessam1783 Neither are Unicorns. There is evidence of their existence everywhere you look.
@@garypudup2109 And an example would be?
@@mohannadessam1783 There is as much evidence for the existence of unicorns as there is gods. Gotcha.
@@garypudup2109 You have already said that. What I'm asking for now is an example.
You know Ricky is a much more thoughtful and intelligent guy than a lot of people give him credit for
People may not know he has an upper second-class honours degree in philosophy.
You don’t have to be intelligent to see the flaws in religion
@@TonyEnglandUK According to atheist religion, What is wrong about slavery?
Should we ask kmer rouge?
@@MilitantAntiAtheism I've no idea what you just typed and even less idea why you typed it in my direction.
@@TonyEnglandUK More than 110 million people slaughtered in less than 100 years in the name of atheist religion. A very impressive kill score indeed. Even muslims are impressed with the _efficiency_ in genocide.
I liked that wording. , " If we destroyed every holy book, in a thousand years they'd all be back but not the same as it was. If we destroyed every science book, in a thousand years they'd all be back the same, because every test would yeild the same result". OWNED!!
Kevin riser science changes from time to time. We discover new things in every study. Study lil bit mate
@Tim H Whenever we discover other universes, study dark matter etc.
@Tim H a lot of science is speculation hence why many views are called "theories".
Which scientists do you believe in? The ones who claim GMO food is good for you or the ones who claim it is bad for you? What about consciousness? Is life really created out of matter and chemicals yet there is no real evidence of this? Which theory of the creation of the universe do you believe in?
Using the word "theory" is nothing but an indirect way of saying "We have no real faith in this scientific view but it is the best we can do for now and it is all subject to change so please don't sue us if it is wrong".
@@ktailor1980 "a lot of science is speculation hence why many views are called "theories".
The fact you can write this demonstrates you don't know what a scientific theory is. You should study that before making such statements.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
What you're referring to is actually a hypothesis, and all you've done is repeat some religious propaganda intended to discredit the irrefutable achievements of science, like the computer and Internet you used to write your ignorant comment disparaging science.
@Amândio Rocha you should definitely go and meet NASA and all the other scientists in the world who are still spending so much time and money trying to understand the origin of the universe and gravity better. Please go and rescue them.
Indeed there is no magic involved in creating life. It's all a natural process called "science". If you ask me what exactly is that natural process, I have no idea, I just call it science to make it sound like it makes sense to fool creationists into thinking, that I know what I'm talking about.
These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need magic to explain nature, because it's all a natural process called science.
You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass, space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point, because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no mass, no nothing, do you understand?
There was only the point, a bit like a dot, and from that point a universe came out, just like that - poof - for no apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved, just your everyday science... it's all a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very scientific.
I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it happened over long, long, very long time. That's all you have to know and that it's called "science".
Also, don't worry yourself that no one with an actual brain actually believes the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals. Don't worry that the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense than atheism *cough-cough*, I mean magic.
The fact that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is also totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -
natural process, natural process, process process, let's get scien-tific
no magic, no magic, magic magic no no
... see how good it makes you feel?
"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t."
--Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, There Must Be A God, Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981. & Hoyle On Evolution. Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105
Excellent debate, both seem very capable of defending their corner without shouting or coming to blows.
paul eggins yeah but Ricky obviously destroyed him, just as any rational conversation about the existence of god.
People will say god is not rational.. well that is a paradox because reasoning without using your reason wouldn’t make to much sense right? U are right though, it’s a pretty polite confrontation but I think it’s just because no one was trying to convince no one and the debate was short and pretty superficial
Jonathan Rao True, but normally when God & religion are being discussed tempers can & often rise. Just nice seeing two different views being discussed with humour & with an absence of any malice.
I agree that Ricky won the debate. whenever I'm confused about religion I watch this. I'm proud to say I'm a agnostic atheist. LOL
Although just a little, gentlemanly fight could have been entertaining.
paul eggins cause they don’t hate each other.
Love the way Ricky isnt dismissive or rude towards his host because he obviously has beliefs that are dear to him, he only explains the way facts that lead him to his own thoughts & beliefs, he literally puts in to words what I feel but cannot explain, have to say that the host also isn’t aggressive on the topic, great snippet of conversation 👏
Think you a little confused hunzo, atheism is about not having beliefs. An atheist does not believe in God.
@@jonacars26 I think you're a little confused, Gerupoada. Atheists still have beliefs, non-religious ones.
Atheists usually arent. I find its the religious people that a rude as soon as you challenge their made up beliefs. Christians and Catholics are the easiest to debate since every story in there book originated in another religion
@@TonyEnglandUKThey just don’t have religious beliefs. (coming from an atheist).
@@FranciscoHOS No shit. If someone is an atheist and has religious beliefs that's a contradiction.
Colbert trying his hardest to get a rise out of Ricky at certain points... but to no avail! Ricky invites these chats with open arms and a calm demeanour because he know's that people have very strong belief systems and always want to challenge him about why he doesn't believe in the same religion/ beliefs as them. So dynamic and clear with his explanations, without belittling the opposition during a conversation that means so much to a lot of people! Masterfully navigated Ricky... Hats off to you pal!
I've never heard it put that way but I really liked that answer Ricky gave of, " you don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in one more." framing it in that context was such a good clear way of getting the other person to relate to you and see it from your perspective.
That would make sense if the each god had a mathematically equal value. Meaning, if there were 100 gods, and you believe in one, then you’re a 99% nonbeliever and someone else is a 100% nonbeliever. But in reality, the difference in believing there is 1 or 0 gods is much more than just a 1% leap. In effect, you aren’t moving around within a category, you are destroying the category itself.
It’s like saying I believe in one gender and you believe in zero. Some people believe in an infinite number of genders across a spectrum. But there is MUCH more similarity between believing in 1 or 2 genders and believing in 3000+, than either of those are to believing in no genders at all. Again, the first two options maintain the category of gender, the third demolishes it and shows how vastly a different view it really is.
Logan Goff -How? How can you have never heard it put that way before? It's been said thousands and thousands of times, years and years before now.
Except there aren't degrees of theism, its binary, you either are one or you aren't.
It's like a vegetarian justifying vegetarianism by saying, “We are all vegetarians when it comes to not eating most species of animals. Some of us just go a few species further.”
Or an Amish person saying, “We are all Amish when it comes to not using most of the technology humanity has ever invented. Some of us just go a few technological devices further.”
One man believes the world is round. Another believes it is flat. Another believes it is rectangular. Another believes it's shaped like a Krispy Kreme donut. One more guy believes the earth has no shape at all. He says "I believe in 1 less shape than you all do".
This argument that "You don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in one more" is extremely weak. As a Muslim, this argument can easily be countered. In Islam, we believe in (1) one God (2) who is eternal (3) he begot no one nor was he begotten and (4) there is no one comparable to god [Quran, Surah/Chapter 112]. If you believe in these 4 aspects, you can take all the 2999 gods and you will realize none of them possess these 4 characteristics. They either have multiple gods attributed to divinity or their gods are just weak and comparable to what we see in this world, limited in power.
The God in Islam and the God that Muslims believe in must have the qualities of (1), (2), (3) and (4). If not I reject the religion. As a result, all the 2999 so-called gods and all their associated religions are all rejected and there is only one religion that then carries the truth; the religion that highlights pure monotheism and the oneness of God that was meant for all of mankind.
Total respect for both of these guys for keeping it respectful and not getting angry or feeling like they are being attacked. I wish I could debate people like this
I believe the earth is actually a giant pizza 🍕
Here's your chance, @tonyblakk2813.
@@FranciscoParra-im9piWell said
Was is respectful that steven claimed some made up character from a old story would rape ricky?
You dont understand respect.
@Hogstrictors right.
This presenter was way more accepting of Ricky's way of thinking than a lot of people can be its actually quite refreshing to see
well both were very considerate. The thing is most people have a specific view of atheists and their way of thinking.
Often not beein able to understand how someone can be grateful yet have no where to target it to, or to accept that there is just univers nothing less nothing more.
I guess Colbert hasn't realy talked like that with an atheist, because most of the time these arguments tend to be about the question weather there is a god or not, not on how do atheists percive the world and answer questions believers often atribute to god.
That's not a good thing. Is it refreshing to meet a serial killer that makes you a cup of tea before he kills you? The difference is only superficial. I do not enjoy falsehoods and deception. Show us your true self. I care not if they are chanting in their living room or on my door step -- or rather, I care equally. Therefore, what I mean to say is, he is only ostensibly different to the crazy believers, not genuinely.
Warhammer Workshop *tips fedora*
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
Good on Stephen for the way he handled this conversation which is presumably difficult for him given his own beliefs.
It's harder being a Christian than an Atheist in an argument for sure.
@@Jvlerah It sure is haha. Having logic and reason on your side tends to help ease things - makes counter-apologetics quite easy.
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
Wish this type of discussion was possible in every setting in every part of the planet.
Elkdog same here man. Conversations like these are what truly make America great. Not all this chestbeating and sudo patriotism
What is truly important is not their conversation, what is important is do you have faith. We are here to prove to God who we are, not the other way around and faith is the only way. Falun Dafa explains.
After this and the golden globes, Ricky was the hero I never knew existed, the hero I definitely don’t deserve, but the one that I need most right now.
a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a Dark Knight
U can thank God for that.😉
It is a shame that what he said in the golden globes wasn't a surprise to the people behind the golden globes. It's all about money 💰. They new the type of things Ricky would say.
Pretty sad that you need someone to say they dont beleive in a god for you to call them a hero. Sad life ya got there buddy.
@@JohnStockton7459 You know nothing about their life Judge Judgington.
"That's good. That's really good. That's REALLY good. Let's ignore it forever."
Colbert lost the battle there right away!
"the whole universe was in an atom.." That's really dumb. That's REALLY dumb. Let's go with it.
Gervais is right and he won and atheists always win any debate because they don't have "faith, beliefs and feelings" behind them, they have FACTS. :) But you should always debate nicely.
Paula G Whyte First of all did you hear him explain agnostics? That means they DO NOT actually know and so it is a Faith based Belief as well.
Secondly their science "facts" work against them. To say there is nothing beyond what we can see is ignorant as we only see a super small part what is all around us. It is small minded think you know much of anything when science admits that energy spectrums are infinite in both directions from what we experience.
There is a Mind behind everything because it works and is productive and is coded and has meaning and purpose.
Denying God is a defense against conscience and/or ego.
sorry for typos.. this touchy dainty technology is a bit discriminatory.
Ricky Gervais yet again spot on. 👌
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
I love his answers. EVEN disagreeing entirely from the most fundamental place, it never got personal, mean, or petty. Kudos to them both for that.
Truth doesn't matter to you? Only that they were nice? Smh.
@@mrd3016 He literally answered HONESTLY... as he believes and feels... and you don't like that?! I mean they can TALK and be civil and NOT hate each other or attack each other... THAT is good. That's called tolerance. You DON'T want to be tolerant?!
Don't pretend that you wouldn't have enjoyed much more seeing them physically assault each other to determine who was right.
Like if Ricky had suddenly sucker punched Colbert in the face to get him to confess that once you're dead that's it, then after some messy wrestling on the ground Colbert finally managed to connect a knee to Ricky's groin, and whilst winded he was then forced to state that a divine intelligence does indeed govern all fundamental laws and matter, this way we have both a clear winner and a definitive answer to the question, as well as satisfying our primal urge to see people tear each other apart.
@@NeverlandSystemPunkGirlChloe oogly boogly smiigly wiggly? That's what your words sound like. There is no god. You get that, right? How old are you? 12?
@@TheVideoLounge ACTUALLY I would NOT wanna see them come to blows. I LIKE tolerance, thank you very much.
We CAN and SHOULD be able to disagree without coming to fuckin blows yo.
Stephen's point is literally: "I choose to believe in God, because it makes me feel better."
I can respect that view, of course. One hopefully can also see why BITS of the same view might make others feel worse, or frightened, or confused, as well...
That's an incredibly ignorant view.
It's probably the safest place to debate from and it's a position that even I, as one vehemently against religion, can see as a logical point of view.
"I know there's issues with the existence or not of God, I don't believe in every aspect of it and nor can I explain it, my belief stems from a wish to feel secure and comfortable in life".
That's not a dangerous point of view, it's not hurting anyone, it's completely within one person.
@@combatwombat2134 Not hurting anyone..... until you indoctrinate your children with the bible from an early age, vote for policies that mirror what you read in your rather immoral book and continue to influence others, both friends and family, to avoid pursuits of knowledge and science in favor of "saving" themselves. Don't be fooled: it's absolutely a dangerous position.... arguably more dangerous than the true religious nuts because at least those nuts are so extreme that it scares people away. I agree that there is nothing *inherently* wrong with belief for the sake of comfort but if we're being practical, the effects are predominantly the same because your belief won't be any "less" if it comes from a place of fear of the unknown/death -- you'll ultimately indoctrinate yourself entirely as there's no true comfort in being on the fence between two positions.
I mean that's how I feel too tbh. Deep down I know I'm an atheist but it feels nice to believe there's some kind of force or being out there with a plan. Praying also feels good because it's basically a form of meditation and, again, offers a semblance of having some sort of control over things that, logically, are completely random. I basically just pick bits from different religions to suit me though, like a buffet. I have no interest in actually joining an organised religion.
AMAZING how they never got personally UPSET or lost their sense of humor....all the while keeping their own perspective and respecting the other's right to see something DIFFERENT. God damn refreshing.
Ricky is far from refreshing.
"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." Ricky Gervais
Ricky does not know what biblical faith is because he just does not care to know.
Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/
www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith
www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust
www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass
www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith
Ricky can't even explain the start, creation, and yet he acts so smugly.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
Mr. Mark - Your language is not refreshing.
@@2fast2block If you need to insult others, it's only showing a weakness in your case, not theirs.
@@TonyEnglandUK if you were honest, which you're not, you'd see I gave correct evidence against Ricky and those like you who defend him. You can't get around such evidence so you don't tell the truth
@@2fast2block I criticise you for insulting people and you respond by insulting me. Since you seem keen to promote Biblical faith, I don't see anywhere Jesus telling his followers _"it's good to be rude and insult people while spamming my religion",_ do you?
*I love the people saying colbert had a sensible conversation with ricky! I didn’t realise saying “the devil will be raping you when you die!” was sensible!*
It's a quote of something Ricky said. Someone wrote to RG and said that would be his fate if he didn't become Christian.
Ricky is great and his best comment ever has been “my religion is kindness” … mine too Ricky. Peace to everyone.
@Laura p
Some of my neighbors have a sign on their front lawn, part of which says “ kindness is everything” ; I agree that kindness is great, but do you agree that it also needs to be linked with wisdom? Because sometimes good intentions which have kindness as an intention, can sometimes have a negative effect.
Such as : we must be kind to everyone, so we must have a minimum wage of 15 (or 16 or 17) dollars an hour, and then some of the smaller businesses who can’t afford to pay that wage would go out of business resulting in more unemployment.
Jesus Christ's main message was the same and he did it way better.
@@noonespecial4272 Sort of beat me to it. Ricky's comment is basically one of the core messages in Christianity, and most other religions for that matter. It's a shame the simplicity of religions always gets hijacked by humans, and inevitably 'organised', corrupted and/or misrepresented. Ricky shows you don't necessarily have to declare yourself as a Christian in order to 'be' a Christian / lead a Christian life. Which in the scheme of things is probably all that matters.
That’s what religion is supposed to be kindness!!
It Is time to put the kind back into humankind! If you’re a good person.. you’re following Gods purpose for his creation not religion an rules If you’re a kind n good person that follows Gods rules without knowing it Peace all! Thanks for your kind comment and God will bless America when America Blesses God again 🙏🇺🇸..with kindness not judging for all lives matter ! From womb to the tomb! Even George Washington said it best which I call the definition of Faith= A Firm Reliance on Devine Providence
@@noonespecial4272 it's not a competition.
Ricky Gervais spoke extremely well here.
ha
onlinedudeman Relax dude we are not attacking the good part, we are attacking the bad part of religion that we REALLY NEED OPPOSITION, look europe the atheist are the majority do a google on it and other thing, the highest quality of life it is on europe.
Alternative Facts Survivor quality = convenience.. "home is where the heart is! google that if you want dude :)
onlinedudeman Whaaat ?, im trying to say that, with more religion in one society the less is the quality of life, it is just facts, im trying to say that there is no such thing as atheist there is just supernatural believers, it is like afairyest, there is NOT such think, so relax dont need to be upset with us.
Alternative Facts Survivor you fucked up there m8. religion can be described or defined if you will as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." don't get your nickers in a twist .. setting down jim :)
A lot of people here after the Golden Globes, I see
Yup.
You too huh
I wouldn’t come here if weren’t for Gervais. Can’t stand Colbert!
I'm from the past... What happened?
Hahaha shhhiiittttt
I respect colbert here for not trying to convince him and not diminishing his viewpoint but also providing his own, this is a good debate and we need more of this in today's society!
‘If we took all the holy books and burnt them they wouldn’t come back in a thousand years
But if we took all the science books and burnt them in a thousand years they would be back’
Ricky Gervais
Jez Tickles I could say the exact same things about history books. If they were burnt they would never come back
Owen Hannon Yes and no, there’s actual proof of history but none whatsoever of God
ie fossils, radiation etc etc
Nonsense god is not a book he's the word, you can never destroy the word of god
Andre Lypher
Well done! That is nonsense, you’re correct
I would rather have questions without answers, than answers that we cannot question.
You can question them. That's the whole point of science. It's only proven as long as a new theory doesn't disprove it. So if there is/ you have a better explanation than e.g. the Big Bang, go ahead. Try and figure it out for yourself.
@@ayebarberfuckmeup4689 , you misunderstood the point he was making - it was a criticism of the infallibility claim of the church, and their refusal to allow anyone to question their edicts.
@@lenkacfk7155 oh my bad. I interpreted it the other way round
So you'd rather live in ignorance than find out the truth... Your statement sounds intelligent but it's really not.
@@_thenidefyyoustars , you misunderstand the meaning: he says that he would rather that some things remain unknown for the time being, since we haven't found all the answers yet/ science hasn't advanced far enough, but that we are still free to look for the answers/ do the research, than have all questions answered and explained by religious doctrine that no one is allowed to question.
Stephen went from “you’re just believing Hawkins!” to “That’s good, that’s actually good” lmao
well they were talking about two different things. ultimately atheism gives you no basis for morality and purpose. without god how can you make sense of everything? how can something come from nothing?
@@irishscience580 so you're saying you don't have innate empathy? You need a book to dictate how you live your life?
@@cianleonard1745 He didn’t need to come from anywhere, He created time and space and thus exist outside of them
@@cianleonard1745 the creator cannot be created. simple logic
@@porc5231 yes because that book is written in your heart aswell. the bible just fortifies your conscious.
Ricky's argument about destroying the books and having the same science books return was something I had never thought about and I think it's just brilliant
@@InfoStrikeI think you didn't listen carefully. He never said that the religious books could disappear. Like he's not saying that they'll stop existing magically. He's just postulating a possibility that if someone "willingly" destroyed all the religious books. There is no chance that even after 1000 years even if some kind of religion is formed again it would be the same as previous one.
Fortunately, that's not the case with science.
@@InfoStrikeobviously he doesn't mean literally
@@InfoStrike I think you are misunderstanding his scenario
@@InfoStrikeHe's saying that if we erased science and all religions, then science will still return as the same science. Religions will return as completely different stories. Christianity would not be the same Christianity. Islam when that return as the exact same Islam. Because science is based on research and evidence and fact, whereas religion is based on storytelling and mythology.
He is a true atheists he is like Im open to the possibility if you can show me proof. That is a reapectable arguement and can argue his point very well. Whether we agree or not.
The 'proof' is to be found in quantum mechanics.
''There is a creative intelligence underlying the field"- Max Planck
But, if you dont wish to see or are open to the possibility, something then you wont, you would just be wasting your time.
I just had a stroke trying to read that
I was an atheist my whole life until I decided to prove to myself that the resurrection didn’t happen. But I ended up believing that it did happen due to historical documents (secular included). If you actually want to know if God is real, then do some unbiased research and the door shall be open for you. I am now a Christian.
@Matt Brennan please be specific?
Wow. That’s a fine, christian attitude to have. Brother’s keeper and all that. Ty for proof yet again that godly people can still be assholes. Well done.
This is by far, the best spirited, most refreshing and most intellectually honest debate on this subject with a large amount of viewership. I'm glad that nobody hurled personal attacks against each other, there was no circular arguing and the host never sensationalized the audience. Although I desagree with Stephen's position, I sure do appreciate his ability to conduct a civil debate.
Civil debate? He has childish baseless attacks on Trump nightly.
toscodav So?
Civil? Did you miss the part where Colbert said Gervais was gonna get raped by the devil?
"I only believe in one less God than you..."
That argument is not really that good.
@@Terry-nr5qn it's not really meant to be a argument and if it was it would still beat whatever a religious person would argue considering they literally just believe in a myth😂
@@Terry-nr5qn It's not really an "argument" though, what is it arguing? It's just meant to show how he thinks of beliefs in gods.
Sunrider It is actually. For example hundreds or maybe even thousands of people are potentially my father yet only one of them is actually my father. And it’s the same thing with religion according to people of faith. Many religions are potentially true but only one of them are actually true. So saying i just reject one more then you do isn’t really a good argument. I believe there are much better arguments for the disbelief in God then that.
@@edmqnd8128
"Many religions are potentially true but only one of are actually true". No they could ALL be false.
this is the video that confirmed my belief as well. thank you ricky! I couldn't have said it better.
Mine too !
See, that's how you talk and share opinions.
“The universe has no obligation to make sense to us”
Jeff Thompson we make sense of it
Sigma
Quoted perfectly by Neil Degrasse Tyson
Our minds cannot grasp the concept of existence and this is why certain religions exist to "make sense" of it.
@@bluemountain8110 ? We do attempt to make sense of the universe. We have not made "sense of it" yet. Unless you know something I don't?
"you don't believe in 2999, and i don't believe in just one more" love that lmao
It's not very strong because monotheistic God is the greatest thing there is, while pagan gods can be killed or disobeyed and don't have absolute power over everything. The majority of people in the world believe in one God, the ultimate entity. There's no competition with pagan pantheons and folk gods.
@@JohnFromAccounting they will never understand...
Are you telling me the monotheistic God’s of all religions are the same? Of course not. So when you compile the list of Gods, whether it’s 3 or 3,000, the argument still applies. You believe in yours and not the others. An atheist simply believes in one less….whether it’s 3 or 3,000. “They will never understand” is as arrogant a comment as I can imagine. When will you understand that God and Santa Claus are equally as tangible?
@@funstuff5675 I’ve never witnessed a religious person make a compelling argument for belief of any gods. We know why they can’t. Frustrating to witness the delusion. I try to be polite and respectful of peoples religions but it can be very difficult in the face of such nonsense
@@JohnFromAccounting The majority of religious people in the world select the most-popular god in their nation and dismiss all others without even reading what they have to say. Bearing in mind what your religion warns you about lying, tell me how many other religions' holy texts you've read besides yours.
He asks specific questions, but interrupted him before he could finish almost all of his points.
that's how arguing works...if you understand the other guy's argument you move on to another One, no? What am i missing?
@@arbestcrontisb4248 not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, you're missing this. In order to make a point, it should be a complete thought. If its interrupted, then the person isn't listening which effectively means you're wasting your breath.
@@davibrass if i understand your argument there is no point in waisting our time on something we both already know....no? Might sound rude but that's how it works when you talk with somebody...
@@arbestcrontisb4248 There's also the fact that during a debate both sides are unlikely to change their minds, it's usually meant as a public demonstration to prove/show other people and persuade an audience, an interruption both gives an unfair advantage to one person and is relatively rude (which I personally don't mind)
@@arbestcrontisb4248 my takeaway Is if you ask a question, listen to the answer without ASSUMING you know the complete thought. If you're a host, be polite. Besides, that host found that he was being outsmarted and that's the reason he interrupted so that he can try to discredit Gervais
The ONE topic that ricky doesn’t fuck around about and brings his inner debating beast
and exposing hollyweird
@R M If your God is actually loving and compassionate, She would host a five-minute press conference to wipe away our doubts.
@R M why do you call him Jesus when that isn't even his name
@R M :/
Grow up
What i love about this conversation is that they are not actually attacking or disrespecting each other beliefs, the actually listen, and that´s something we are not used to these days when talking about a controversial topic such as religion
Literally one of the best videos on UA-cam.
One of my favorite people, he explains his thoughts so throughly and with such a good point, I quote him all the time when I talk to someone about religion
Maybe you should speak for yourself, Instead of using quotes from a pommie git to back yourself up.
@@williampreller6387 Maybe you should learn how to address a lady and her beliefs instead of cheap and disrespectful language.
You mean Stephen?
(kidding)
Let God say a word to Ricky from His Book "The Bible" his words
40 The Lord said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:
4 “I am unworthy-how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer-
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:
7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
Job
1Then Job replied to the Lord:
2“I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
@@PaulOReilly712 You're quoting from a religious book. There are thousands of religious books, all full of supernatural claims. It's not an argument winner. It's just a quote from a book.
I'm a sucker for civil discourse. I'm personally on Ricky's side, but I love Stephen's willingness to hear him out.
TF 2020
He isn’t hearing him out though. He asks this same question to all of his atheist guests and uses fallacious reasoning, without ever addressing their points.
Timo Terpstra
Seriously? What do you think I missed. This was not sarcasm and I didn’t miss the point. 🤦♂️
Olga Sven
Is this a joke? Can you point to conversations that Stephen has that aren’t civil? Rubin is a fraud. He’s been exposed for his idiocy lately.
this is exactly what we need in this society rather than being a lawyer of ur own point
Really he doesn't shut up and listen. Can stand him.
This guy is not only funny, he is also wicked smart in my opinion. This is the kind of guy who would be hung by the church in the 19th century.
SC98 Lmao I would have kept on reading if not for you lol thanks
Also change your pfp that is not cool
He would probably be the zealot rallying for heretics to be hanged in that bygone epoch of religious eminence. Ironically, Atheists are much like religious zealots in all but differences in epistemology. They feign civil indifference, but really they would hang sensible theists like myself if they had the power. Just look at the Soviet Union or Mao's China to see how Atheists deal with heretics. Now get off your high horse
@@erictimm7112 That's the flag for America when it had 13 states, I don't know what you think it is
You're talking about Ricky right? He's not wicked smart... He made blatantly false statements about science and how it works.... Science is constantly changing.
@Marie Smith he said he was an agnostic atheist
Wow his book analogy was amazing
Articulate. Love how Stephen shook his hand and accepted a well-argued point instead of belittling, insulting, or spouting damnation.
No the belittling and insulting is Ricky's forte.
@Samantha McBay well said
@@simonjones3845 this forte is being braindead.
"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." Ricky Gervais
Ricky does not know what biblical faith is because he just does not care to know.
Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/
www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith
www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust
www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass
www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith
Ricky can't even explain the start, creation, and yet he acts so smugly.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
@Dawson Davis it’s not forcing, because the children will have their own choice. I grew up with religious parents who taught me their fate and I don’t follow it anymore
@@casper64
So what
If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness. - A phrase that was carved on the walls of a concentration camp cell during WWII
So sad, yet so haunting 😔
@Jordan P its kind of dumb to not believe in god but believe it was a test...
Daniel Goleš very bad choose of words my fried....life as a mortal man or woman is very very short... life after is for eternity for the true believers and real followers ofJESHUA!
@@stefanmacdonaldbrown6823 Sorry you have to hear this from me but Santa Claus doesn't exist... Same goes for afterlife, god, angels and other fictional characters...
@@stefanmacdonaldbrown6823 You're religious. You want to be right more than you want the truth.
The premise of going about it is the crucial difference. “How?” - is the objective of science. “Why” - is the objective of philosophy and religion. We see it in this debate.
Yep.
The natural sciences worry about the mechanics (the "How"), while religion worry about the motivations (the "Why").
@Blind Brazilian Tex Atlantis I disagree with you.
@Blind Brazilian Tex Atlantis
Sure, kid. Whatever.
@Blind Brazilian Tex Atlantis tf? What you're saying is that answering why is basically like answering how, completely contrary to philosophy.
'Why' is contingent on reason, 'how' on the other hand depends on matter and what made things come together, ex: the process in which something occurs is how it occurs, not why.
Edit: why something exists, isn't how it exists. Sure you need to explain how it came into matter, but why it exists requires reason, "how" Doesn't explain that.
The origin of reason, as most philosophers of science would say, is most likely god.
You are speaking nonsense. The objective of science is to explain the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of the universe.
This civilised, respectful, knowledge based, challenging debate is exactly what is needed at this time..the problem is it is easier to cancel than study, listen and reflect.
That might be the first time I've ever heard a believer say an atheist made a good point.
And there are believers in this comment section who agree with you, because they are saying (on the basis solely of that concession) "Clearly Colbert cannot be a believer".
It seems they're proud of being immunised against reasoned argument.
Pav: He might have said it was a good point but it was not a good point science has been wrong many many times when they step out of bounds on the unprovable, so the science would not all come out the same,unless that also proclaimed the falsehoods as the same.thanks
pavlovsunhappydog ;)
It’s not an atheist and believer. It’s 2 men talking.
Jo man you are stupid lol science doesn't claim to know it all, it is the gathered peer reviewed evidence. Thinking like you would result in zero technology, agriculture, etc. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, it's the very reason for advancement u like religion who assume they know everything unlike science.
I enjoyed this because each of them respected each other and didn't try to talk over and tell the other one that they were wrong. Personally I am atheist but I have nothing against those who believe in religion. I have multiple friends that are religious, the thing is, I don't bring up the fact that we are different in beliefs because who really cares. If someone has a good heart and good intentions why would we stop being friends just because of our differentiating opinions. Have a nice day everyone :)
My thing with religion is that you must arrive and embrace it on your own accord; no one else is allowed to dictate your thoughts or spirituality and people/families that drill conjecture into children with no oppurtunity for free-thinking is bullshit. It's like you said; the problems occur when the idealism, religious or otherwise, is forced down your throat. I am personally agnostic, and I know many people whose faith gives them strength and makes them better to those around them.
I think we can all take a page from the Buddhists and focus on harmony and balance because if humanity doesn't find a way to co-exist now then we'll likely keep killing each other for what we aren't, instead of celebrating what we are.
Sammy, you don't know it, but you are Christian...
.
Yeah! I agree, a lot of religions have many rules or standards to live by that just seem like common sense in a way. Like being nice or not lying, all things that humans have mutually agreed are morally correct. :)!
fthechance wait what do you mean?
I love seeing a debate like this: where one person makes a claim against the other, and the other replies sincerely with "that's good." They have different views and respect each other equally. It's very refreshing.
Marie Smith
Debatable, yes. Pointless? Also yes.
Ryan O but it’s fun and interesting to debate with people, why else would humans do it? Doesn’t matter if it’s pointless, you writing your comment was pointless and me writing this is pointless but it’s fun and interesting.
But say Trump is not that bad.
.. Get cancelled no debate, you are evil
It's not a debate, a debate is when two people debate a subject and use facts and reasoning to argue a point, there is no debate here because Ricky has facts aka science and Stephen has nothing but a 2000 year old ideology
Except Stephen Colbert is a pro abortion Satanist and his belief in God doesn't necessarily mean he is pro God.
Awesome! I'm a Christian and some of the most interesting conversations I've ever had was with a college professor who is an atheist.
Logic beats nonesense, every time.
Nothing wrote this comment.
Experience beats logic. Life is illogical lol. What is logical to you might be illogical to me.
A Boston Is that an objective logical fact?
Logic is a little bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are receiving me properly? Your ears are green.
Helder Pinto
lol, no it doesn't 😂What world are you living in?! I will quote mark twain for you:
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."