Rowan William's response to Ricky Gervais' comment as 5:46 is an abdication of his responsibility to proclaim the gospel. But then, the Archbishop would have to actually believe the gospel before he could tell it to others, & nothing I've heard from the Archbishop so far leads me to think he has a clue as to what the true gospel actually is. I'm not sure who the bigger comedian is - Ricky or the Archbishop.
Im an athiest, and have no respect for dogma. However, I do like hearing Rowan Williams speaking. I think he comes across better than gervais in this particular spat
That's proper atheism and theism, keeping it cool, no hate speech or childish ... oh no, the comments are full of idiots and ass holes being childish... never seen this before on youtube
@Galacticavatar I don't believe in any gods, which "God" are you talking about? the Muslim god? the Hindu gods? the Greek gods? the Roman gods? the Aztec gods? the Scandinavian gods? the African gods? which one? or are you just talking about the god you believe in? That is a very arrogant comment, and to label people who don't believe in any of these fantasies as "Don't believe but he is with you" is a insult to people who have thought about it and rejected the ridiculous ideas.
@Arrested101 I think you will find that atheists ( though we are all different ) are still waiting for "believers" to prove their case . Atheists have a certain amount of proof for the scientific reality of the universe .But when you make a statement like " There is a God in heaven " you have to follow that with your evidence and proof , which must be of UK judicial quality !! The reason why atheists are becoming more vocal than usual is because they are fed up of being discriminated against .
@domnal Really? In what ways are atheists being discriminated against? Maybe in certain places like Middle America and other "DIE HARD" religious areas, but certainly not in the UK (arguably one of the most secular countries in the Western World).
If Ricky Gervais had let the Archbishop speak a little more then there might have been an interesting discussion. I'm an atheist too, but I'd like to see the case being presented a bit more thoughtfully than this.
I think Ricky Gervais is great. Along with Larry David, Woody Allen, The Smerch and Christopher Guest, Ricky is one of my comedy heroes.
Not only is he witty and in sync with the public, he is philosophical and clever. However, after watching this I respected him even more for having such a rational and reasonable conversation with a man who has contrasting religious views. But then I became slightly disappointed when Ricky made that Atheist article online which was far ruder, Bit annoying.
Wow, I actually found this really uplifting. Two people, despite having fundamental disagreements, having a civilised discussion, able to laugh together and respect each other.
I do not believe in god; but if any religion could prove that their particular god exists, I would convert in an instant. However; on the other hand, if it was proven that no god exists, would the believers be as open minded?
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Well the arch b is meant to be the acme of christianity of the hinglish kind so you would expect him to be polite after all we can respect HIM but are able to tell him also very politely that his beliefs are a load of primitive claptrap .
When all my intelligence and learning are suggesting otherwise i still hope, for meaning in the world! I am not a christian, I am a... what collection of cells? automiton with no free will? a perfect creation? i can never KNOW so I will just hope that there is!
I think that when you get a very vociferous athiest what you find, is someone who in his heart really hopes that he is wrong!
Ricky is brilliant because he still has that inquiring mind of our youth and still manages to be warm and speak with humility! I have started a new religion it called "HOPE"! we could be tiny specs on spinning ball in the middle of an empty endless universe but hope we are not! I hope there is a love or an essance that is unfathomable to our conscious minds!
I didn't realise that Ricky Gervaise was SO crass and inarticulate. He is shallow - the Archbishop is profound. RG comes across as strident and desperate to convince himself of his own atheism. LOl @ 4.43! Go the ABC! And again @ 5.52! RG is not in the same league as the ABC and knows it.
I thought that gervais was funny and made excellent points. But as usual no matter how good and strong an argument an athiest makes you christians will just cover you ears and go "lalalalalala" and carry on believeing your nonsense.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You assume I'm a Christian, maybe I'm a Liberal Jew! RG comes across like an over-excited child, disappointing, I had expected better. You've taken the opportunity to have a go at Christianity. What about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc? If they don't fit your world-view, or reinforce that chip on your shoulder, will you condemn them too? Lighten up and stop attacking the beliefs of others. We are all on the same journey.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Hmm, just checked your profile and I see you're 17. I knew everything at 17 too. 30 more years of life (and death) experience has taught me there are no absolutes. I envy your idealism, I had it once as well. You will lose it, hopefully not the hard way, but you will surely lose it. Enjoy your certainties while you have them! Peace. Shalom.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You're 17! What the hell do you know about anything? All you know for sure is that you are right. Ah, I remember it well! You'll find you get less right as you get older. Peace. Shalom.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Can't you do better than that? You're not on the school debating team then? You probably wonder why young people get a bad name - just look at your recent comments again: toys out the pram. You are the future, and you are why the future is grim. Relax sonny, you'll get ulcers with all that anger in you. Peace, again.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal 'Not interested in a debate' just about sums it up. My guess is you never will be. Inarticulate aggression seems to be more your line. Probably for the best anyway, it would give me little pleasure (well, maybe a little) in demolishing you. Again. At least I've not gone 'lalalala..' as you predicted! If you're gonna start it, make sure you can finish it!
@killie04 Ah So now you know everything about me from a few small comments I've made on youtube? I think you overestimate your intelligence. Fine. You want an argument so much, here you go. I adore Ricky gervais. I think he is the funniest man in comedy. I think he made excellent points in this video and had a good debate with the AB. He may not be as fluent as some but he has a working class background. He wasn't some rich kid. Although he's very smart and witty. And he's an athiest. Your turn.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal No, I don't know all about you. But you did want an argument and then ran away shouting 'fuck off' over your shoulder when challenged. What am I to think? RG was good in the Office, which is why I wanted to see him elsewhere. He doesn't have the capacity to lock horns with the ABC. That wasn't a debate, just embarrassing. You're an atheist! Good for you! So was I at 17 when I knew everything. It was all so clear and obvious. It is less so now. That may happen to you.
I don't think I have ever heard of someone starting out an athiest then turning christian. Doesn't say too much for your intelligence. And I was not looking for a debate in the first place. I was stating a fact. Your the one that wanted the argument.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal On the contrary, loads of people start to question their certainties after a bit of life experience. I don't think the intervening 30 years have made me more stupid, just less sure. 'Stating a fact' - that's my point, facts at 17 look very different with maturity. And that's a fact! I'm afraid 'yoof' stamping their feet and saying 'this is how the world is!' is ridiculous because it's not based on experience of the world. How can it be? You haven't had time.
@killie04 I'm getting really fed up of every point you make being about my age. I'm no fool. I'm not a braindead idiot like many young people. Its just strange because you appeared to to have gone the wrong way with your beliefs. People tend to believe in god at first and then realise that religion is bullshit. I believed in god once. Then I came to my senses. I'm not claiming to know everything. But I do claim to be a very firm athiest. Unless God comes down from the sky. This will not change.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Your age is relevant. You see the world thru the eyes of a western european teenager, and think that what you see is all there is. I understand your point, because I've made it, but you cannot understand mine. I wonder how many of your close friends and relatives have died? If you can explain your loss, and man's place in the cosmos, thru atheism, that's fine - it's your choice. I have faith that there is more than we can see. I respect your view, can you respect mine?
I don't see the world through any template. I see the world as I see it. You can't just apply a stereoptype to one person. To a general group of people, yes but not one dude. None of my friends have died although I have almost none. And if they did die I wouldnt really give a toss. When people die, There worm food. Full stop. Theres no secret meaning. Theres no purpose. Its all science and chemical reactions. Might not sound nice but its the truth. I can't respect your view.
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You're right, we are all different. You have a very bleak worldview, which I don't share. Man has always, and will forever, seek meaning, and not a 'secret' meaning. Socrates said 'the unconsidered life is not worth living' and he's right. Mankind seeks to know its place in the cosmos - you stand apart from that and don't want to know. A cold and lonely place to be, a western european teenager! Shame.
I don't have a bleak world view at all. Your totally wrong there. I reasonably enjoy my life and I like keep to myself. Nothing wrong with that. And as for Socrates. The big bang. Thats how life was made. God diddnt make us. It was the big bang. And evoloution brouight us to where we are now. Now please don't tell me you don't believe in Evolution. If so then you are an idiot. With all the evidence for evolution you have to laugh at creationsts. It was the big bang. Not a god.
Rofl. You mean what caused the band. I don't know I'm not a scientist. If you actually mean "what made the bang" as in created then your a fucking idiot.
@ChainsawVsGod How am I an idiot for saying that? It's a perfectly valid question given the context. We know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so in order for the universe to have "started" something beyond the conventional laws of physics must have caused it. Religious people believe it was a God of some sort, Atheists prefer not to talk about it.
I'd like to answer with a witty answer but unfortunately I'm only 18 and not a scientist and do not know the in's and outs of the big bang. I do however know for a fact that God is not real and that creationism is the biggest load of nonsense that man has ever conjured up.
@ChainsawVsGod Well that's just as closed minded as religious fanatics, discussing a subject that you know next to nothing about yet you irrevocably claim to be right and totally un-open to other theories. Even Dawkins doesn't go as far as to state "I know for a fact that God is not real". I respect your view, and fair enough you don't know much on science, but you shouldn't go claiming your baseless assumptions to be the only reasonable conclusions and calling all others idiots.
But what you people never, ever, ever understand is that we do not need evidence that there is no god. It is clear to any sensible, sane human that there is no god. You are the ones who need evidence. And there never has been, nor will there ever be any shred of proof. That is why Atheists believe in science. It looks at only proof. And facts. Not some bollocks told in an old book that claims Noah took 14 million animals on a boat with him.
@ChainsawVsGod Unsurprisingly I would disagree, when I look at the incredible complexity of say Mathematics or quantum physics I can't look at that and not think that, if not necessarily a Judeo-Christian god than at least some form of creator is behind it.
I believe in science as well, the pursuit of it I think can tell us more about God; but in the end it explains the How as oppose to the Why which is where religion comes in, I don't see them as alternate theories just different angles.
That's ridiculous. Why are you so inclined to believe that a god is behind it? None of these things were made to be complex. They just exist, and happened to be complex. And mathematics is man made. God didn't make it. The main difference between science and religion is that science is based on facts, discovery (by man) and hard evidence. Religion is based on utter delusion. Nothing else. Just utter delusion. And I see you didn't say anything about Noah's ark.
@ChainsawVsGod Any mathematician will tell you that maths, like science, was discovered and is continually being discovered, it is already there. Things don't just happen to be complex, not on the level we're talking about at least. Is it not unscientific just to say "They just exist", no, its scientific to then ask how are things like this, and I would argue religious to ask why are they like this. True science is based on facts, but it is also based around a LOT of theory. - out of space
Maths was not discovered. Are you telling me that archeoligists somehow dug up Maths? Is that what your telling me? Mankind created it. WE created numbers. WE created formulas. WE.Created.Maths. Not god.
And when I say "things just exist". I'm not saying that they suddenly just appeared. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how complex the process of them coming to exist was. Because no one was around to judge the complexity of them, therefore they weren't complex. Its nature.
@ChainsawVsGod Well, 1 + 1 = 2, that's a fact, we didn't invent it and we can't change it, that's just how the universe is. I see what you mean, no we didn't just come across it one day. But think about Pythagoras, we didn't make that up, its a built in universal truth. For me the fact that maths and sciences and the universe in general are so incredibly ordered and complex points towards some form of designer.
- Didn't fully understand the complexity thing you said.
@ChainsawVsGod Surely Mathematics would exist even if humanity had never lived though. The beating of the waves, the orbit of planets, would still follow mathematical equations whether humans were there to observe it or not. Similarly, science is not man-made. Scientific rules would still govern nature if humanity had never been - though it might not be chronicled by an species. Think you are mixing up discovering Maths/Science with creating Maths/Science, or I'm misunderstanding your argument.
I think your confused. How could anything abide by Mathematical rules if those rules were never made? Man made the rules in the first place. Maths isn't a part of nature. There isn't a single thing that follows the rules of Maths. Whether maths had been invented or not wouldn't have made a difference in the natural world. Maths is just a guide to make us understand the way things work, and to help us modify it.
@ChainsawVsGod Debatable. Philosophers have argued for centuries over the same thing - since the time of Pythagoras - so it's not so cut and dried. I'd say the golden ratio is an example of a mathematical rule that is inherent in nature and pre-dates humans. And gravity would still operate even if Newton hadn't studied it. For me observing and naming something does not equal creation but I think it is a case of how you interpret the word natural.
Sorry. I'm using an unfamiliar PC and the lag is really bad. I don't normally comment on the internet due to how arguments decline into name-calling so I was unaware that my initial comment had been accepted and retyped it with my thoughts slightly refined.So I reposted by mistake. I'm not actually a believer in God either, by the way.
@CptFadeOut Or rather....nature and evolution is the thing I would term closest to "God". All powerful,morally impartial, and concerned entirely with self-preservation.
@CptFadeOut And "God" would just be the personification of nature, by my way of thinking. Someone to be accountable, keep people in line, and give hope to people to live their lives, safe in the knowledge that everything will be okay in the long run.
@J0YTEX Ok so I did kinda tip-toe around Noah's Ark there, I'd probably have to go with the all annoying cop out argument of an allegory, the poetic language used is meant to represent a larger tale ect. Its a tough one, especially as my faith really originates with Jesus teachings in the new testament and the above argument. In truth I don't really know, just as you cannot explain the big bang I can't really provide a water tight argument in it, and it would be arrogant for me to claim i did.
That's the difference between english and american religion.
Our most influential religious scholar is open to atheism but truly believe's in his "god", unlike the american version of "god" who serve's only to fleece you of your money and control it's people. Land of the free! Go talk to a snake
I am an atheist and we are entering the topic of 'Philosophy of Religion' in A Level Philosophy. Even though it seems logical and rational to say 'I'm an atheist', we were asked around the room from person to person to what belief we have and I suddenly felt anxiety. Because there seems to be a bi-product of Atheism to other people such as being Narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant. If you say 'I'm an Atheist', it seems to make you look a bit rude and harsh.
Not at all, you have every right to be a Atheist just as its some one elses right to believe in god. How can it be rude and harsh to have your own opinion as do religoius people
But before I said my belief to the class, a bloke said 'I don't wanna say I am an Atheist...because the problemn with Atheists is that they seem to be on a high horse, looking down at people who believe anything else. They seem to be quite narrow minded - ignoring anything that seems outside of this world''.
This annoyed me a bit because I looked at all the evidence and decided that atheism was the most logical choice. I wasn't narrow minded
@danutcase. You get good and bad in all, if people can't be bothered to find out if your a radicalist or a high moralist then you shouldn't worry. There are some strong points on both side for and against the possibillity of god, what ever path someone takes it don't make them right, it just makes it their opinion, beacuse at the moment god or his non existance can't be proven either way. Well thats my opinion ;-)
im not particularly religious but it does inspire belief and hope , whether fickle or not if we have a belief and a hope a guidance towards good it can only be a good thing
Gervais, would you allow the man to speak! Whatever your beliefs or opinions are, its a shame he couldn't just put the '"I'm in desperate need of attention, please listen to me' to one side for a bit and allow a respected guest time to say something that i'm sure both athiests and thiests would have found interesting. More interesting than perhaps anything Gervais can offer on the subject anyway
Scary that Ricky Gervais had to correct the ABOC in respect of the doctrine of forgiveness! The fact is though, that Jesus defines 'the highest moral code' of which Ricky speaks and to say you live your life according to it means you life your life as Jesus did (which no-one does).
I greatly admire Gervais, but I wish he'd grow some balls. He's supposed to be a comedian for fuck's sake. Much too nice, and a little two-faced. I have a feeling Steve Merchant would have been more honest about his beliefs.
Its condescending to pretend you respect someone's opinions when you think the opinions absurd. Tolerance is a condescending concept.
Its no virtue to forgive, by the way. I disagree with Ricky on that. (Why was he pandering??)
i don't think he was pandering, I think it's called respect. You don't have to be rude and tarnish someone because you don't agree with them. I think Ricky put his point accross very well in a friendly and intelligent manner, what would have been the point in expressing himself in an aggressive and frank way when the two of them are never going to agree?
no need to be patronising....and I wasn't suggesting that they agree. Yes I understand that he is more blunt in his views when doing stand up etc but thats more for comedy value and to an audience that are already fans of his work.
....The archbishop, although many think he is spouting rubbish understand that he is a respectable figure in society whether you are religious or not and so he is dumbing down his views because it is a more serious conversation and he is being respectful. Ricky still stands by his (non) beliefs when talking to the bish and challenges his views but my point was there would have been no point in going straight at the bish like he does in stand ups...it's called respecting other peoples opinions.
I didn't mean to be 'patronising'. If Mr. Gervais is 'dumbing down his views', then you must agree he's being condescending? If he really 'respected' the bishop he'd have been more honest.
He wasn't prepared for the meeting I'm sure, but this looks like a scene from Extras with Andy floundering to remain politically correct and not offend.
...I don't consider the 'bish' who recently suggested it might be a good idea to adopt sharia law in britain, as a 'respectable figure in society'.
In fact it seems like that phrase only applies if society 'respects' him or finds him 'respectable'. I don't.
I'm not suggesting Ricky should have laid into him. Actually watching it back, he did reasonably well. But if the guy was a politician, would he have felt the need to be so 'respectful'?
ricky was wrong at the end. According to the christian faith the only way to be saved on the day of judgement is to believe jesus christ died to save you from sin. If not then you will be punished in hell for eternity.
actually there is empirical evidence for BOTH theories, depending on how you interpret this empirical evidence depends on your point of view.
Google "the parable of the invisible gardener". its a really good philosophical tale about perspective.
you can be an athiest AND an agnostic by the way, athiesm is a lack of belief in a supreme being, and that doesn't contradict not being sure whether a supreme being exists or not.
No, one is a question of what justifies knowledge (agnosticism) while the other is a question over what exists (theism+atheism)
A belief in the non-existence of something is the same thing as a lack of belief in the opposite. I do not think it is possible to have knowledge about the real world for the reasons Descartes suggests, ie that everything in the world could be an illusion, so I am an agnostic, but that does not conflict with my lack of belief that a God exists.
@pspidey512 Haha do you read dictionaries? Party time!
You still don't see the distinction between belief and the status of knowledge. You can believe something that you do not have knowledge of (ie i do not KNOW that my mother is my birth-mother but I believe it.) Extending that to God, you can believe that you cannot KNOW one way or another and still believe that there is no deity.
@01joydivision Ok, I'll give. I guess technically you could be both. Of course, the distinction that you can be both an atheist and an agnostic or only an atheist is (I'd argue) of abstract interest because you'd have to be a strange character to be an atheist and *not* also an agnostic. You would effectively be saying that you think god does *not* exist, *and* that it is provable. How exactly do you prove a negative? (I can't prove that there isn't an invisible pixie sat in front of me).
@01joydivision Hmm, really (as far as I'm concerned) the only logical viewpoint. As I mentioned though, I think when people say they are atheists this is usually what they mean.
people should'nt forget gervais has a degree in philosophy so he not exactly just some dude talking down the pub, i think the discussion here is more about the general nature of religion than gods existance
church of england is the best of all christian denominations. a lot of agnostics and non-biblical christians go to church of england services, its very open to individual belief instead of a doctrine.
sorry took a while to reply.. anyway the bible has been interpreted so many different ways, that in itself must be proof of some subjectivity in its meaning. Most christians believe in the bible in a non-literal sense. I think that the interpretation of any text is more important than the actual words on the page, so in that sense, I would say there is room for individual belief even if you are all following the same book.
@01joydivision What utter rubbish. If there was a god then he'd be intelligent enough to make his message clear. As it stands the bible is ambiguous and therefore not worthy to be followed. You're just making a lame excuse... but of course you can't admit this to yourself.
@mikeyo1234 You think you know me from a couple youtube messages. I'm an atheist. Anyway, my point is that the existence of God is somewhat irrelevant to how valid religious belief (of which i have none) is, a book is a collection of words which people interpret thousands of different ways and spark millions of different thoughts, and I don't think that you can say that every single belief and thought which is derived from the bible is rubbish just because the idea that God wrote it is rubbish.
as far as i can see, of the people who support the archbishop in this debate (i use that term loosely), their strongest argument they have is that ricky stutters a lot, and doesn't give the AB much time to answer. hardly convincing. the AB is a man who has dedicated his life to the study and practice of theism, and he fails dismally to counter the arguments of a man with an amateur interest in it. Gervais 1, AB 0. too easy.
gervais was being rather apologetic and erroneous about religion. it's not distorted at all. if he read the 'scriptures' properly he'd see the perversion of it all.
I have heard alot of comments about this discussion between the two. I was glad that they was both let to talk and that they wernt stopped and that is the best thing in radio today.
There is a convincing argument that it is advantageous to a child to believe what he or she is told (e.g. the fire is hot - don't touch it), and that this instinct has therefore been passed down to all humans via natural selection. Ricky's arguing that religions are using this natural tendency to believe their elders to indoctrinate children.
As an atheist, I can completely empathise with Ricky, and how he acts, here. Whilst maintaining a respectful and polite attitude, he still clearly (and understandably) wants seize the opportunity to put all the points to the Archbishop which cross the minds of all atheists, in terms of counter-religious arguments, and see what kind of answers we can get from a strong religious character, rather than just the view of another follower of the religion which may be diluted or distorted in some way.
To be fair to Ricky - the only reason this debate happened was an overlap of 2 guests and so he was just grabbing his moment with someone he's unlike to meet again.
This isn't really a fair defence, given the same could be said of the Archbishop. However, I think 'time-counting' is a bad way to critique a conversation.
If you don't think of someone as 'His Grace', and just a person, then it's just another conversation between people with differing opinions. Some talk more, others listen more.
That requires the assumption that you believe the organisation has the right to give people titles. If I gave myself the title 'Seventh Lord of the Illiad' you probably wouldn't expect everyone to address me by it. Neither do I expect to have to address them by theirs.
If by "organisation" you mean the country, it s the PM/Monarch who gives out such titles, thus meaning that as the official body, they have the right to. Get a letters patent and I will call you 'Seventh Lord of the Illiad'
For the first time in my life, as a huge Ricky Gervais fan, I just wish he'd be quiet for a moment and listen. He clearly has an agenda here, and it doesn't involve actually listening to the A.o.C's responses.
Yeah, Ricky does seem to "butt-in" a bit but he does have some valid points - The Archbishop is just reserved by comparison. Those 2 could do a 3hr show and raise so many issues.
he gets to talk enough, if not too much, at his pulpit, doing things like concluding floods are blamed on homosexuality and britian should embrace sharia law
Not a fan of free speech then i gather? Not too fond on facts either, are you? Not that any of that has anything, whatsoever, to do with my comment or this video.
There are many speech broadcasters who could learn a lot from Simon Mayo. For a start, Simon's show in intelligent radio that doesn't need phone-in callers.
Rowan William's response to Ricky Gervais' comment as 5:46 is an abdication of his responsibility to proclaim the gospel. But then, the Archbishop would have to actually believe the gospel before he could tell it to others, & nothing I've heard from the Archbishop so far leads me to think he has a clue as to what the true gospel actually is. I'm not sure who the bigger comedian is - Ricky or the Archbishop.
john17v17 2 weeks ago
ricky keeps stumberling on his words
bensimps123 1 month ago
Im an athiest, and have no respect for dogma. However, I do like hearing Rowan Williams speaking. I think he comes across better than gervais in this particular spat
MrSyrett 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
I'm a big fan of Ricky....but I have to admit he is fucking inarticulate! I also love how at about 4.05 he refers to himself as a 'scientist' !!!
ojm88 3 months ago
Ricky's quite embarassing in this, so argumentative and floundering
ZF1000 3 months ago
This is how a PROPER debate should be...
Arrested101 4 months ago
you can believe in God and Science as Muslims do
ZAFARCAKE 4 months ago
That's proper atheism and theism, keeping it cool, no hate speech or childish ... oh no, the comments are full of idiots and ass holes being childish... never seen this before on youtube
TheGudZeBadAnDaFozzy 5 months ago
religion has the advantage of people wanting it to be true
AndysEdits 6 months ago
Not believing in God doesn't cause God to not exist. God is always with you... believe it or not.
Galacticavatar 6 months ago
@Galacticavatar I don't believe in any gods, which "God" are you talking about? the Muslim god? the Hindu gods? the Greek gods? the Roman gods? the Aztec gods? the Scandinavian gods? the African gods? which one? or are you just talking about the god you believe in? That is a very arrogant comment, and to label people who don't believe in any of these fantasies as "Don't believe but he is with you" is a insult to people who have thought about it and rejected the ridiculous ideas.
BunWackettBuzzard 6 months ago
I like the CofE clergy.
jacksawild 7 months ago
If you "believe in God" then you have a screw loose !! No atheist has to justify his disbelief to any churchman .
domnal 9 months ago
@domnal That as it may be, yet most atheists seem to go out of their way a hell of a lot in order to disprove believers... which seems almost ironic.
Arrested101 4 months ago
@Arrested101 I think you will find that atheists ( though we are all different ) are still waiting for "believers" to prove their case . Atheists have a certain amount of proof for the scientific reality of the universe .But when you make a statement like " There is a God in heaven " you have to follow that with your evidence and proof , which must be of UK judicial quality !! The reason why atheists are becoming more vocal than usual is because they are fed up of being discriminated against .
domnal 4 months ago
@domnal Really? In what ways are atheists being discriminated against? Maybe in certain places like Middle America and other "DIE HARD" religious areas, but certainly not in the UK (arguably one of the most secular countries in the Western World).
Arrested101 4 months ago
Very interesting conversation; shame it didn't continue for longer.
BSEmadcow 9 months ago
The Archbishop could have made a good living as a narrator.
Coolguyrob2006 9 months ago 2
@Coolguyrob2006 No.
domnal 9 months ago
If Ricky Gervais had let the Archbishop speak a little more then there might have been an interesting discussion. I'm an atheist too, but I'd like to see the case being presented a bit more thoughtfully than this.
czgibson 10 months ago
He reminds me of Dumbledore
tpl89 1 year ago
@tpl89 He is Dumbledore !!
domnal 9 months ago
the archbishop has a floating head
yippeekayay1 1 year ago 8
I think Ricky Gervais is great. Along with Larry David, Woody Allen, The Smerch and Christopher Guest, Ricky is one of my comedy heroes.
Not only is he witty and in sync with the public, he is philosophical and clever. However, after watching this I respected him even more for having such a rational and reasonable conversation with a man who has contrasting religious views. But then I became slightly disappointed when Ricky made that Atheist article online which was far ruder, Bit annoying.
danutcase66 1 year ago
I can't believe Ricky compares believing in God to believing in Santa! He does look a bit silly there.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 I agree. Also, he didn't seem to give the Archbishop much of a chance to speak.
CSTATB 1 year ago
@CSTATB He's Ricky Gervais. That's why
Jenkoins 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 I don't think he does, both are equally silly.
hi262779 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 No he doesn't. There both fictional characters created by humans. Which part is silly?
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
Wow, I actually found this really uplifting. Two people, despite having fundamental disagreements, having a civilised discussion, able to laugh together and respect each other.
Jonnytheloof 1 year ago
Pause for thought.
I do not believe in god; but if any religion could prove that their particular god exists, I would convert in an instant. However; on the other hand, if it was proven that no god exists, would the believers be as open minded?
johnpetermalcolm 1 year ago
Ricky... let the man talk!
hudstar 1 year ago
What an excellent vid with two charming blokes. Those two definitely need to talk more. Ricky is searching for answers to something.
oneworldfamily 1 year ago 7
belief in Santa does generate a moral code. "Good kids get presents, Bad kids dont"
phantomdoodler 1 year ago
@phantomdoodler
Similar to Christianity I think.
"Believe in god and go to church for the sole purpose of getting rewarded when you die or don't believe in him and suffer forever in hell"!
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
I adore Ricky Gervais
12345l6789 1 year ago
Gervais was brilliant as always. The archbishop was pretty good too though. He wasn't a bigot or rude or anything. Although I am 100% athiest.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Well the arch b is meant to be the acme of christianity of the hinglish kind so you would expect him to be polite after all we can respect HIM but are able to tell him also very politely that his beliefs are a load of primitive claptrap .
domnal 4 months ago
When all my intelligence and learning are suggesting otherwise i still hope, for meaning in the world! I am not a christian, I am a... what collection of cells? automiton with no free will? a perfect creation? i can never KNOW so I will just hope that there is!
marccas10 1 year ago
I think that when you get a very vociferous athiest what you find, is someone who in his heart really hopes that he is wrong!
Ricky is brilliant because he still has that inquiring mind of our youth and still manages to be warm and speak with humility! I have started a new religion it called "HOPE"! we could be tiny specs on spinning ball in the middle of an empty endless universe but hope we are not! I hope there is a love or an essance that is unfathomable to our conscious minds!
marccas10 1 year ago
I didn't realise that Ricky Gervaise was SO crass and inarticulate. He is shallow - the Archbishop is profound. RG comes across as strident and desperate to convince himself of his own atheism. LOl @ 4.43! Go the ABC! And again @ 5.52! RG is not in the same league as the ABC and knows it.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
I thought that gervais was funny and made excellent points. But as usual no matter how good and strong an argument an athiest makes you christians will just cover you ears and go "lalalalalala" and carry on believeing your nonsense.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You assume I'm a Christian, maybe I'm a Liberal Jew! RG comes across like an over-excited child, disappointing, I had expected better. You've taken the opportunity to have a go at Christianity. What about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc? If they don't fit your world-view, or reinforce that chip on your shoulder, will you condemn them too? Lighten up and stop attacking the beliefs of others. We are all on the same journey.
killie04 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Hmm, just checked your profile and I see you're 17. I knew everything at 17 too. 30 more years of life (and death) experience has taught me there are no absolutes. I envy your idealism, I had it once as well. You will lose it, hopefully not the hard way, but you will surely lose it. Enjoy your certainties while you have them! Peace. Shalom.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
Oh do fuck off. How does being a firm athiest make me an idealist. Get over yourself.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You're 17! What the hell do you know about anything? All you know for sure is that you are right. Ah, I remember it well! You'll find you get less right as you get older. Peace. Shalom.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
Fuck off old guy. Your the one who knows fuck all.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Can't you do better than that? You're not on the school debating team then? You probably wonder why young people get a bad name - just look at your recent comments again: toys out the pram. You are the future, and you are why the future is grim. Relax sonny, you'll get ulcers with all that anger in you. Peace, again.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
Ok. I'l say it again. Fuck off old guy. I'm not interested in a debate with you.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal 'Not interested in a debate' just about sums it up. My guess is you never will be. Inarticulate aggression seems to be more your line. Probably for the best anyway, it would give me little pleasure (well, maybe a little) in demolishing you. Again. At least I've not gone 'lalalala..' as you predicted! If you're gonna start it, make sure you can finish it!
Peace. Again.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04 Ah So now you know everything about me from a few small comments I've made on youtube? I think you overestimate your intelligence. Fine. You want an argument so much, here you go. I adore Ricky gervais. I think he is the funniest man in comedy. I think he made excellent points in this video and had a good debate with the AB. He may not be as fluent as some but he has a working class background. He wasn't some rich kid. Although he's very smart and witty. And he's an athiest. Your turn.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal No, I don't know all about you. But you did want an argument and then ran away shouting 'fuck off' over your shoulder when challenged. What am I to think? RG was good in the Office, which is why I wanted to see him elsewhere. He doesn't have the capacity to lock horns with the ABC. That wasn't a debate, just embarrassing. You're an atheist! Good for you! So was I at 17 when I knew everything. It was all so clear and obvious. It is less so now. That may happen to you.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
I don't think I have ever heard of someone starting out an athiest then turning christian. Doesn't say too much for your intelligence. And I was not looking for a debate in the first place. I was stating a fact. Your the one that wanted the argument.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal On the contrary, loads of people start to question their certainties after a bit of life experience. I don't think the intervening 30 years have made me more stupid, just less sure. 'Stating a fact' - that's my point, facts at 17 look very different with maturity. And that's a fact! I'm afraid 'yoof' stamping their feet and saying 'this is how the world is!' is ridiculous because it's not based on experience of the world. How can it be? You haven't had time.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04 I'm getting really fed up of every point you make being about my age. I'm no fool. I'm not a braindead idiot like many young people. Its just strange because you appeared to to have gone the wrong way with your beliefs. People tend to believe in god at first and then realise that religion is bullshit. I believed in god once. Then I came to my senses. I'm not claiming to know everything. But I do claim to be a very firm athiest. Unless God comes down from the sky. This will not change.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal Your age is relevant. You see the world thru the eyes of a western european teenager, and think that what you see is all there is. I understand your point, because I've made it, but you cannot understand mine. I wonder how many of your close friends and relatives have died? If you can explain your loss, and man's place in the cosmos, thru atheism, that's fine - it's your choice. I have faith that there is more than we can see. I respect your view, can you respect mine?
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
I don't see the world through any template. I see the world as I see it. You can't just apply a stereoptype to one person. To a general group of people, yes but not one dude. None of my friends have died although I have almost none. And if they did die I wouldnt really give a toss. When people die, There worm food. Full stop. Theres no secret meaning. Theres no purpose. Its all science and chemical reactions. Might not sound nice but its the truth. I can't respect your view.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal You're right, we are all different. You have a very bleak worldview, which I don't share. Man has always, and will forever, seek meaning, and not a 'secret' meaning. Socrates said 'the unconsidered life is not worth living' and he's right. Mankind seeks to know its place in the cosmos - you stand apart from that and don't want to know. A cold and lonely place to be, a western european teenager! Shame.
killie04 1 year ago
@killie04
I don't have a bleak world view at all. Your totally wrong there. I reasonably enjoy my life and I like keep to myself. Nothing wrong with that. And as for Socrates. The big bang. Thats how life was made. God diddnt make us. It was the big bang. And evoloution brouight us to where we are now. Now please don't tell me you don't believe in Evolution. If so then you are an idiot. With all the evidence for evolution you have to laugh at creationsts. It was the big bang. Not a god.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
@BrutalGrindCoreMetal What made the bang?
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
Rofl. You mean what caused the band. I don't know I'm not a scientist. If you actually mean "what made the bang" as in created then your a fucking idiot.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod How am I an idiot for saying that? It's a perfectly valid question given the context. We know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so in order for the universe to have "started" something beyond the conventional laws of physics must have caused it. Religious people believe it was a God of some sort, Atheists prefer not to talk about it.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
I'd like to answer with a witty answer but unfortunately I'm only 18 and not a scientist and do not know the in's and outs of the big bang. I do however know for a fact that God is not real and that creationism is the biggest load of nonsense that man has ever conjured up.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Well that's just as closed minded as religious fanatics, discussing a subject that you know next to nothing about yet you irrevocably claim to be right and totally un-open to other theories. Even Dawkins doesn't go as far as to state "I know for a fact that God is not real". I respect your view, and fair enough you don't know much on science, but you shouldn't go claiming your baseless assumptions to be the only reasonable conclusions and calling all others idiots.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
But what you people never, ever, ever understand is that we do not need evidence that there is no god. It is clear to any sensible, sane human that there is no god. You are the ones who need evidence. And there never has been, nor will there ever be any shred of proof. That is why Atheists believe in science. It looks at only proof. And facts. Not some bollocks told in an old book that claims Noah took 14 million animals on a boat with him.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Unsurprisingly I would disagree, when I look at the incredible complexity of say Mathematics or quantum physics I can't look at that and not think that, if not necessarily a Judeo-Christian god than at least some form of creator is behind it.
I believe in science as well, the pursuit of it I think can tell us more about God; but in the end it explains the How as oppose to the Why which is where religion comes in, I don't see them as alternate theories just different angles.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
That's ridiculous. Why are you so inclined to believe that a god is behind it? None of these things were made to be complex. They just exist, and happened to be complex. And mathematics is man made. God didn't make it. The main difference between science and religion is that science is based on facts, discovery (by man) and hard evidence. Religion is based on utter delusion. Nothing else. Just utter delusion. And I see you didn't say anything about Noah's ark.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Any mathematician will tell you that maths, like science, was discovered and is continually being discovered, it is already there. Things don't just happen to be complex, not on the level we're talking about at least. Is it not unscientific just to say "They just exist", no, its scientific to then ask how are things like this, and I would argue religious to ask why are they like this. True science is based on facts, but it is also based around a LOT of theory. - out of space
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
Maths was not discovered. Are you telling me that archeoligists somehow dug up Maths? Is that what your telling me? Mankind created it. WE created numbers. WE created formulas. WE.Created.Maths. Not god.
And when I say "things just exist". I'm not saying that they suddenly just appeared. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how complex the process of them coming to exist was. Because no one was around to judge the complexity of them, therefore they weren't complex. Its nature.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Well, 1 + 1 = 2, that's a fact, we didn't invent it and we can't change it, that's just how the universe is. I see what you mean, no we didn't just come across it one day. But think about Pythagoras, we didn't make that up, its a built in universal truth. For me the fact that maths and sciences and the universe in general are so incredibly ordered and complex points towards some form of designer.
- Didn't fully understand the complexity thing you said.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX
Looks like our views are just far to different to agree on anything. We best stop this now.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Fair enough, at this point it seems to be leaning over toward philosophy and faith. Enjoyable debate all the same.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Surely Mathematics would exist even if humanity had never lived though. The beating of the waves, the orbit of planets, would still follow mathematical equations whether humans were there to observe it or not. Similarly, science is not man-made. Scientific rules would still govern nature if humanity had never been - though it might not be chronicled by an species. Think you are mixing up discovering Maths/Science with creating Maths/Science, or I'm misunderstanding your argument.
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut
I think your confused. How could anything abide by Mathematical rules if those rules were never made? Man made the rules in the first place. Maths isn't a part of nature. There isn't a single thing that follows the rules of Maths. Whether maths had been invented or not wouldn't have made a difference in the natural world. Maths is just a guide to make us understand the way things work, and to help us modify it.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
Comment removed
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut
I suppose your right. I just don't believe that god made the processes as I do not believe in god. I believe they were created by nature.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod Debatable. Philosophers have argued for centuries over the same thing - since the time of Pythagoras - so it's not so cut and dried. I'd say the golden ratio is an example of a mathematical rule that is inherent in nature and pre-dates humans. And gravity would still operate even if Newton hadn't studied it. For me observing and naming something does not equal creation but I think it is a case of how you interpret the word natural.
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut Why did you repeat your comment, only slightly differently.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod
Sorry. I'm using an unfamiliar PC and the lag is really bad. I don't normally comment on the internet due to how arguments decline into name-calling so I was unaware that my initial comment had been accepted and retyped it with my thoughts slightly refined.So I reposted by mistake. I'm not actually a believer in God either, by the way.
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut
Ah ok no problem. And I'm glad to hear that.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut Or rather....nature and evolution is the thing I would term closest to "God". All powerful,morally impartial, and concerned entirely with self-preservation.
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut And "God" would just be the personification of nature, by my way of thinking. Someone to be accountable, keep people in line, and give hope to people to live their lives, safe in the knowledge that everything will be okay in the long run.
CptFadeOut 1 year ago
@CptFadeOut You are a natural satirist - not many will "get" that comment !!
domnal 9 months ago
@J0YTEX
And still no comment on Noah.
ChainsawVsGod 1 year ago
@ChainsawVsGod look below, I ran out of space before.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
@J0YTEX Ok so I did kinda tip-toe around Noah's Ark there, I'd probably have to go with the all annoying cop out argument of an allegory, the poetic language used is meant to represent a larger tale ect. Its a tough one, especially as my faith really originates with Jesus teachings in the new testament and the above argument. In truth I don't really know, just as you cannot explain the big bang I can't really provide a water tight argument in it, and it would be arrogant for me to claim i did.
J0YTEX 1 year ago
Comment removed
hippotoast 1 year ago
That's the difference between english and american religion.
Our most influential religious scholar is open to atheism but truly believe's in his "god", unlike the american version of "god" who serve's only to fleece you of your money and control it's people. Land of the free! Go talk to a snake
davjconn 1 year ago
I could eat a knob at night
Westy91 1 year ago
You can be a spiritual atheist... to think otherwise shows a lack of intelligence and understanding.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
"Aslong as your ready to recieve it..." - Archbishop
"That's what she said."
aituk 1 year ago
I can see why a lot of Christians hate the Archbishop, talking sense about the Simpsons, blasphemy and forgiveness..... How dare he?
CMOT101 1 year ago
I do kind of like Rowan Williams, although I agree with Gervais' points
MrSyrett 1 year ago
Nice calm discussion
khllysf 1 year ago
I am an atheist and we are entering the topic of 'Philosophy of Religion' in A Level Philosophy. Even though it seems logical and rational to say 'I'm an atheist', we were asked around the room from person to person to what belief we have and I suddenly felt anxiety. Because there seems to be a bi-product of Atheism to other people such as being Narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant. If you say 'I'm an Atheist', it seems to make you look a bit rude and harsh.
danutcase66 2 years ago
Not at all, you have every right to be a Atheist just as its some one elses right to believe in god. How can it be rude and harsh to have your own opinion as do religoius people
hitchhiker38 2 years ago
@hitchhiker38
I know - that is how it should be.
But before I said my belief to the class, a bloke said 'I don't wanna say I am an Atheist...because the problemn with Atheists is that they seem to be on a high horse, looking down at people who believe anything else. They seem to be quite narrow minded - ignoring anything that seems outside of this world''.
This annoyed me a bit because I looked at all the evidence and decided that atheism was the most logical choice. I wasn't narrow minded
danutcase66 2 years ago
@danutcase. You get good and bad in all, if people can't be bothered to find out if your a radicalist or a high moralist then you shouldn't worry. There are some strong points on both side for and against the possibillity of god, what ever path someone takes it don't make them right, it just makes it their opinion, beacuse at the moment god or his non existance can't be proven either way. Well thats my opinion ;-)
hitchhiker38 2 years ago
The archbishop is an incredible man , great orator and very inspiring!
scottc9100 2 years ago
I'm an atheist but I don't think Ricky Gervais comes across well in this,
mattysavage 2 years ago
I disagree with the Archbishop with regards to whether there is a god but I must say he as a an excellent deep voice. Quite god like.
fatmarkstewart 2 years ago
to sum up. religion is utter shit... lets face it guys its all bull
TheRozza333 2 years ago
im not particularly religious but it does inspire belief and hope , whether fickle or not if we have a belief and a hope a guidance towards good it can only be a good thing
scottc9100 2 years ago
@TheRozza333 Well said. It's about time the retarded (i.e. religious) people realised that it was all a farce.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
i'm sorry but ricky gervais does talk soem shit, he just babbles on and on sometimes and doesn't listen!!!
MrLookatmyshit 2 years ago
hahaha... what's the Archbishop plugging?? (you don't wanna know Ricky.. you don't wanna know..)
diddle1988 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this.
Go aheism
12345l6789 2 years ago
Gervais, would you allow the man to speak! Whatever your beliefs or opinions are, its a shame he couldn't just put the '"I'm in desperate need of attention, please listen to me' to one side for a bit and allow a respected guest time to say something that i'm sure both athiests and thiests would have found interesting. More interesting than perhaps anything Gervais can offer on the subject anyway
"I wrote a play once..."
DavidColumbia 2 years ago
Scary that Ricky Gervais had to correct the ABOC in respect of the doctrine of forgiveness! The fact is though, that Jesus defines 'the highest moral code' of which Ricky speaks and to say you live your life according to it means you life your life as Jesus did (which no-one does).
DaveyKrechtner 2 years ago
This is hilarious for all the wrong reasons.
I greatly admire Gervais, but I wish he'd grow some balls. He's supposed to be a comedian for fuck's sake. Much too nice, and a little two-faced. I have a feeling Steve Merchant would have been more honest about his beliefs.
Its condescending to pretend you respect someone's opinions when you think the opinions absurd. Tolerance is a condescending concept.
Its no virtue to forgive, by the way. I disagree with Ricky on that. (Why was he pandering??)
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
i don't think he was pandering, I think it's called respect. You don't have to be rude and tarnish someone because you don't agree with them. I think Ricky put his point accross very well in a friendly and intelligent manner, what would have been the point in expressing himself in an aggressive and frank way when the two of them are never going to agree?
charliefarlie20 2 years ago 3
charlie-
Its called a 'dialectic'. Its how one learns. If they agreed more, there would hardly be any point discussing it.
I thought it was a little dishonest, thats all, when he thinks what the bish says and does and believes is at the very least stupid.
Compare his manner when going through the bible at a stand up or talking religion on a podcast to this exhibition.
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
no need to be patronising....and I wasn't suggesting that they agree. Yes I understand that he is more blunt in his views when doing stand up etc but thats more for comedy value and to an audience that are already fans of his work.
charliefarlie20 2 years ago
....The archbishop, although many think he is spouting rubbish understand that he is a respectable figure in society whether you are religious or not and so he is dumbing down his views because it is a more serious conversation and he is being respectful. Ricky still stands by his (non) beliefs when talking to the bish and challenges his views but my point was there would have been no point in going straight at the bish like he does in stand ups...it's called respecting other peoples opinions.
charliefarlie20 2 years ago 2
I didn't mean to be 'patronising'. If Mr. Gervais is 'dumbing down his views', then you must agree he's being condescending? If he really 'respected' the bishop he'd have been more honest.
He wasn't prepared for the meeting I'm sure, but this looks like a scene from Extras with Andy floundering to remain politically correct and not offend.
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
...I don't consider the 'bish' who recently suggested it might be a good idea to adopt sharia law in britain, as a 'respectable figure in society'.
In fact it seems like that phrase only applies if society 'respects' him or finds him 'respectable'. I don't.
I'm not suggesting Ricky should have laid into him. Actually watching it back, he did reasonably well. But if the guy was a politician, would he have felt the need to be so 'respectful'?
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago 2
(If you want to see 'patronising', check out the 'bish' at 0:25...)
Also the archbishop probably thinks Mr. Gervais is going to hell (and me too, I'm sure).
Tolerance is condescending.
If you get that point, you'll see where I'm coming from. :)
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
who put a dog collar on bob harris?
lounge128 2 years ago 3
ricky was wrong at the end. According to the christian faith the only way to be saved on the day of judgement is to believe jesus christ died to save you from sin. If not then you will be punished in hell for eternity.
Dante1Savage 2 years ago
matt groening is an agnostic
theMAXILOPEZpsycho 2 years ago
agnostic is the way to be.. it doesn't rule anything out; there is no empirical evidence to support either theory, its keeping an open mind
scottiii 2 years ago 3
actually there is empirical evidence for BOTH theories, depending on how you interpret this empirical evidence depends on your point of view.
Google "the parable of the invisible gardener". its a really good philosophical tale about perspective.
you can be an athiest AND an agnostic by the way, athiesm is a lack of belief in a supreme being, and that doesn't contradict not being sure whether a supreme being exists or not.
01joydivision 2 years ago
@01joydivision sorry, that's just plain wrong - an atheist who is someone who actively believes there is no god. An agnostic thinks it is unknowable.
You CANNOT be both at the same time. The beliefs are mutually exclusive.
pspidey512 1 year ago
@pspidey512
No, one is a question of what justifies knowledge (agnosticism) while the other is a question over what exists (theism+atheism)
A belief in the non-existence of something is the same thing as a lack of belief in the opposite. I do not think it is possible to have knowledge about the real world for the reasons Descartes suggests, ie that everything in the world could be an illusion, so I am an agnostic, but that does not conflict with my lack of belief that a God exists.
01joydivision 1 year ago
@01joydivision Maybe you should try reading a dictionary.
Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable".
Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity".
Sorry, you're wrong.
pspidey512 1 year ago
@pspidey512 Haha do you read dictionaries? Party time!
You still don't see the distinction between belief and the status of knowledge. You can believe something that you do not have knowledge of (ie i do not KNOW that my mother is my birth-mother but I believe it.) Extending that to God, you can believe that you cannot KNOW one way or another and still believe that there is no deity.
01joydivision 1 year ago
@01joydivision Ok, I'll give. I guess technically you could be both. Of course, the distinction that you can be both an atheist and an agnostic or only an atheist is (I'd argue) of abstract interest because you'd have to be a strange character to be an atheist and *not* also an agnostic. You would effectively be saying that you think god does *not* exist, *and* that it is provable. How exactly do you prove a negative? (I can't prove that there isn't an invisible pixie sat in front of me).
pspidey512 1 year ago
@pspidey512 type "agnostic atheism" into wikipedia, perhaps that will explain it better than I am evidently
01joydivision 1 year ago
@01joydivision Hmm, really (as far as I'm concerned) the only logical viewpoint. As I mentioned though, I think when people say they are atheists this is usually what they mean.
pspidey512 1 year ago
people should'nt forget gervais has a degree in philosophy so he not exactly just some dude talking down the pub, i think the discussion here is more about the general nature of religion than gods existance
rikcw 2 years ago 4
Yeah he got a degree in Politics. Hes clever.
movieposterboy 2 years ago
Im no Christian (anymore), but the archbishop seems like a really nice and open and honest bloke, good for him.
whato1986 2 years ago 33
church of england is the best of all christian denominations. a lot of agnostics and non-biblical christians go to church of england services, its very open to individual belief instead of a doctrine.
01joydivision 2 years ago 3
But surely if you believe in the bible then its not possible to have a indvidual belief,
its all about towing the religous line.
You can't say i believe in god but under my terms, can you?
hitchhiker38 2 years ago
sorry took a while to reply.. anyway the bible has been interpreted so many different ways, that in itself must be proof of some subjectivity in its meaning. Most christians believe in the bible in a non-literal sense. I think that the interpretation of any text is more important than the actual words on the page, so in that sense, I would say there is room for individual belief even if you are all following the same book.
01joydivision 2 years ago
@01joydivision What utter rubbish. If there was a god then he'd be intelligent enough to make his message clear. As it stands the bible is ambiguous and therefore not worthy to be followed. You're just making a lame excuse... but of course you can't admit this to yourself.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 You think you know me from a couple youtube messages. I'm an atheist. Anyway, my point is that the existence of God is somewhat irrelevant to how valid religious belief (of which i have none) is, a book is a collection of words which people interpret thousands of different ways and spark millions of different thoughts, and I don't think that you can say that every single belief and thought which is derived from the bible is rubbish just because the idea that God wrote it is rubbish.
01joydivision 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whato1986 "the archbishop seems like a really nice and open and honest bloke"
Except he supports the introduction of sharia law into the british legal system.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@whato1986 ive actually met the archbishop twice (i am not christian myself, i am an athiest) and he really is a cracking chap
bowyer56 1 year ago
as far as i can see, of the people who support the archbishop in this debate (i use that term loosely), their strongest argument they have is that ricky stutters a lot, and doesn't give the AB much time to answer. hardly convincing. the AB is a man who has dedicated his life to the study and practice of theism, and he fails dismally to counter the arguments of a man with an amateur interest in it. Gervais 1, AB 0. too easy.
freetheyeast 2 years ago
jebus ricky, let the man talk
mrmogul5000 3 years ago
gervais was being rather apologetic and erroneous about religion. it's not distorted at all. if he read the 'scriptures' properly he'd see the perversion of it all.
spotlitkiss 3 years ago
tv-radio. wtf is going on!?!
spotlitkiss 3 years ago
I have heard alot of comments about this discussion between the two. I was glad that they was both let to talk and that they wernt stopped and that is the best thing in radio today.
Great show and great discussion
chrisedwards121 3 years ago 2
I like the Archbishop, regardless of his faith. He seems like a really nice guy
mynameiscal 3 years ago 5
"I don't think faith schools indoctrinate people" XD
ProblemWithTheTrucks 3 years ago
OMG the archbishop of canterbury came to my school like 2 weeks ago.
His eyebrows r huge!!
(I don't mean 2 offend him, i'm a christian)
=]
ILuvOmarionG 3 years ago
The great thing is that Simon Mayo is the biggest christian there
trotteruk53 3 years ago
His comments on evolution are remarkably misguided. Evolution doesn't say the brain is a sponge....
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
There is a convincing argument that it is advantageous to a child to believe what he or she is told (e.g. the fire is hot - don't touch it), and that this instinct has therefore been passed down to all humans via natural selection. Ricky's arguing that religions are using this natural tendency to believe their elders to indoctrinate children.
joseph2166 3 years ago
lol is this comment meant to be funny?
he meant sponge as a metaphor
rebelbiscuit 3 years ago
That would hardly be respective of the moral code Christians are supposed to have!
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
He may be forgiving but he's not exactly modest. But I forgive him for it.
However, he raises some excellent points.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
As an atheist, I can completely empathise with Ricky, and how he acts, here. Whilst maintaining a respectful and polite attitude, he still clearly (and understandably) wants seize the opportunity to put all the points to the Archbishop which cross the minds of all atheists, in terms of counter-religious arguments, and see what kind of answers we can get from a strong religious character, rather than just the view of another follower of the religion which may be diluted or distorted in some way.
SBMPHysteria 3 years ago 7
Indeed, the Archbishop has a somewhat harder job as he can't refute points because he knows less of Ricky's beliefs.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
To be fair to Ricky - the only reason this debate happened was an overlap of 2 guests and so he was just grabbing his moment with someone he's unlike to meet again.
pudseypumper 3 years ago 4
This isn't really a fair defence, given the same could be said of the Archbishop. However, I think 'time-counting' is a bad way to critique a conversation.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
Goodness Gracious RG could have let His Grace speak.
Ohyewildthong 3 years ago
If you don't think of someone as 'His Grace', and just a person, then it's just another conversation between people with differing opinions. Some talk more, others listen more.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
Why that is how you address an Archbishop or a Duke. It's called respect.
Ohyewildthong 3 years ago
That requires the assumption that you believe the organisation has the right to give people titles. If I gave myself the title 'Seventh Lord of the Illiad' you probably wouldn't expect everyone to address me by it. Neither do I expect to have to address them by theirs.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
If by "organisation" you mean the country, it s the PM/Monarch who gives out such titles, thus meaning that as the official body, they have the right to. Get a letters patent and I will call you 'Seventh Lord of the Illiad'
Ohyewildthong 3 years ago
This because theism is rooted deep within our governmental structure, something I'm not in favour of personally.
philipwhiuk 3 years ago
That sounded remarkably polite from someone calling themselves 'Oh Ye Wild Thong' lol
Angelosanto 3 years ago
For the first time in my life, as a huge Ricky Gervais fan, I just wish he'd be quiet for a moment and listen. He clearly has an agenda here, and it doesn't involve actually listening to the A.o.C's responses.
ferociousdee 3 years ago
Nice interview but I wish Ricky would have let the Archbishop actually respond properly to his points though.
Paracetamoljunkie 3 years ago
Yeah, Ricky does seem to "butt-in" a bit but he does have some valid points - The Archbishop is just reserved by comparison. Those 2 could do a 3hr show and raise so many issues.
movies007uk 3 years ago
he gets to talk enough, if not too much, at his pulpit, doing things like concluding floods are blamed on homosexuality and britian should embrace sharia law
rcarass1 3 years ago
Not a fan of free speech then i gather? Not too fond on facts either, are you? Not that any of that has anything, whatsoever, to do with my comment or this video.
Paracetamoljunkie 3 years ago
There are many speech broadcasters who could learn a lot from Simon Mayo. For a start, Simon's show in intelligent radio that doesn't need phone-in callers.
Ulleskelf 3 years ago 4
Fantastic video!
Ulleskelf 3 years ago 3
"Whats the archbishop plugging" He's plugging christmas" Classic.. And a well deserved Gold Award for Mayo.. MAYYOO..
su001915 3 years ago 5
Free Will! Yes, what a great idea, you get the chance to go to hell!
Dannyjgb 3 years ago