"Does anyone know if Ricky Gervais is an atheist?" [split topic]

[Revelator]

The only thing I find weird (not necessarily annoying) about the new atheism lot is that they always assume that a disbelief in God must also mean a disbelief in anything supernatural. I dont believe in God but I harbour beliefs about many things that are supernatural. What gets passed around as atheism these days, as far as I can make out, is really just a very crude scientism.

And what are these supernatural things you believe in that are threatened by the spectre of crude scientism?
Is it true that unemployment, in this country, is caused by pixies?

The problem is that Dawkins is pretty widely seen as a zealot now. He's stopped doing scientific research and he's an author only.

He's done enough research and written enough books on science--must he keep cranking out more into his old age to have credibility? If people choose to ignore Dawkins' earlier work, it's their loss.

It needs to be a balanced approach. You can't MAKE people understand the implications of DNA sequencing and evolution by brute force. It's just stupid. That kind of change takes at least a generation, if not more.

I must have missed it when Dawkins went around forcing people to read about evolution at gunpoint. The very fact that Dawkins is a bestselling author and public figure might suggest that attitudes have not waited a generation to change.

People like Dawkins are self appointed and they seem to believe that it's their job to move us onto the next level. Total atheism.

As opposed to partial atheism, the less evolved level? What exactly is Dawkins self-appointed as? A public figure? But the public has to agree to that. Being a spokesman for his beliefs? We all play that role. A crusader against religious folly? Perhaps, and if so, bully for him. I don't think Dawkins has ever called being an atheist the "next level." But he would probably say that it is a more useful and beneficial attitude to have in this society than religious fundamentalism, and I doubt anyone here would disagree.

But I think wankathons with Gervais and Dawkins hunched double on pillows, shaking hands with the governor of love, just serve to just piss people off and probably dig further into their belief in god.

Piss off which people? Chat forum members who go into a rage every time some twit named comedian named Gervais pokes his head up?
I suspect that atheist texts--no matter how nicey nicey or aggressive they are--do not appeal to a genuinely religious person, unless that person already has doubts or just wishes to test his faith. And if they're in either of those situations, they won't necessarily go for the nicest text.

It was for Dawkins' recent TV series, so presumably it was his idea (or the producer of the programme's) rather than Gervais's. Anyway, the dynamic between them in this makes more sense in the context that the point of it was to get some sound-bites on the subject for the programme.

Exactly. And in this case Dawkins had a lapse of judgment in his sound-bite harvest. But hey, the guy's in his 70s and probably thinks Gervais is loved by everyone.

[futilitarian]

I love how he doesn't specify what their comparative lack of awe is towards.  It seems like he's wanting to say "their awe towards their God is not greater than my awe towards the wonder of nature" - but he doesn't say that.  Instead he basically says that believing in God in any religion somehow hinders a person's ability to feel awe.  What an idiot.

it's a pretty conventional view, though (he's not as bright as he likes to think, but no worse than anyone else)--the idea being that people satisfied with adorable ancient teleological explanations of things in the world can't really appreciate the awe of reality because they have such a shallow or entirely false understanding of what's really happening.

[futilitarian]

People like Dawkins are self appointed and they seem to believe that it's their job to move us onto the next level. Total atheism.

hasn't Dawkins described himself as a 'cultural Christian'? ...I mean, he's not exactly following in the footsteps of Nietzsche.

[futilitarian]

Same here.  Around the time the "Some People Are Gay. Get Over It!" slogan was suddenly all the rage and pasted around every stinking corner, I could only think "You get over it, please".

what does that (your response) mean? (I take the initial statement to be a call for tolerance, against bigotries that call for and maintain inequalities in legislation, but I don't know what the response is supposed to mean...'stop caring about equality'?...I'm misunderstanding you, right?)

[futilitarian]

hey guys i made a macro share it pls

...he loves trifling bitching on twitter, right? ...tweet it to him, see what happens.

[madhair60]

Someone else do it, I don't have an account any more.

[Neville Chamberlain]

Incidentally it's not my cause, I couldn't give a fuck. I can't remember the last time I had to deal with a Jehovah's Witness so it doesn't affect me.

I know you're probably joking here, but you wouldn't believe the amount of people who genuinely think that religion in society is no more pernicious than, say, a Jehovah's Witness knocking at your door and that therefore atheists should just shut up.

[Dead kate moss]

hey guys i made a macro share it pls

http://www.facebook.com/NarcissistsAttemptAtACommunity

PS all are welcome to contribute.

[olliebean]

FWIW, the thing that most struck me about Gervais' contributions to this interview were that pretty much all his "sound bites" were (like most of what he says about it on twitter) just parroted from stuff that other, more intelligent people (Dawkins amongst them) have said. I honestly don't think Gervais has an original thought in his head on the subject. But maybe it was just easier to get him to churn out a few quotes than to track down all the people who originally made them.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

I honestly don't think Gervais has an original thought in his head on the any subject.

Fixed.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

And what are these supernatural things you believe in that are threatened by the spectre of crude scientism?
Is it true that unemployment, in this country, is caused by pixies?

I dont understand the question.

[Zetetic]

What exactly is Dawkins self-appointed as?

An expert on the psychology of religion, I'd suggest.

[futilitarian]

...making atheism look like a bunch of wankers who are intolerant and can't accept that religion has social benefits, despite it being the cause for marking difference and potentially being a source of hatred amongst groups.

does any atheist actually say that, though?

I mean, similarly, does any American actually deny that slavery was good for the development of their nation, or that 1950s sexism afforded certain benefits to their society? isn't it more a matter of arguing whether or not benefits are worth their costs? after all, these are the same people who admit that some vaccines have slim margins of risk that are outweighed by their benefits.

[futilitarian]

I dont understand the question.

what supernatural things do you think are real?

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

does any atheist actually say that, though?

I think some of them do, though I haven't done a full survey.

I mean, similarly, does any American actually deny that slavery was good for the development of their nation, or that 1950s sexism afforded certain benefits to their society? isn't it more a matter of arguing whether or not benefits are worth their costs? after all, these are the same people who admit that some vaccines have slim margins of risk that are outweighed by their benefits.

Er, yes, there are people who deny those things. It's quite startling you could write something like that. It gives me the same feelings of incredulity that you are expressing, as you don't seem able to grasp that "benefits" and "costs" are themselves terms that depend on pre-judgements about what things have value.

[futilitarian]

you don't seem able to grasp that "benefits" and "costs" are themselves terms that depend on pre-judgements about what things have value.

why do you think that?

[MC Root]

I said it. I'm an atheist. Does that count?

I'd rather know what people believe than think I can change their minds. And if you actually discuss religion with someone who is religious, they tend to make their case for it. The most immediate one to a person's experience that's a positive is usually things like socially positive consequences of their religion. I can't deny that there are positive aspects that result from something I can't put any belief in personally. This is why Gervais is so offensively stupid. There's so much that is awful about religion but he's not pointing that out, nor is he able to contend with the idea that there might be some relative merit in what others believe but he finds ludicrous.

I'm a materialist too, so what's this spiritual stuff?