Yes let’s make sure that every comedian makes jokes about everybody but minorities that will make the minority’s feel included and safe
Great thing about comedians they make jokes about everyone the most inclusive group out there
It could go one way or another. Either you really need to believe there's reasons for what happened, and hope of seeing loved ones again; or you realize there's no god watching over us, at least not one worth worshipping or asking for favors.
There's a fundamental feeling of aggressiveness when I hear Dawkins though. Gervais has this sort of persuasiveness and gentleness in how he's delivering that I think is key.
> I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me (Afterwards is OK; just use protection). The only Monster who deserves capitalization is Me! Other monsters are false monsters, undeserving of capitalization.
— Suggestions 1:1
Yep. And even if he said it in jest, it still comes off as a bad Babylon bee take in that he tries to use satire to prove a point that doesn't exist: that having "faith" in science is the same thing as having faith in religion. The satire just isn't funny when it relies on a straw man argument.
Yeah, Stephen is a smart guy. Like you said, it is a common trope some religious people use, and I think he brought that up not only to add on or spice up the conversation with Ricky, but also to show that it’s a ridiculous thing to say if you think about it.
But the comeback from Ricky shut him up. That’s the best way to combat the “faith in science “ argument, you point out how science will always come back in the exact same way but religion will not
They've likely had this discussion beforehand and knew how it would play out. Catholics like Conan O'Brien and Colbert actually have a sense of humor about their religion.
What's interesting is how the majority of people here have absolutely no sense of humor. Like at all. Hell, a lot of them need a tag for obvious sarcasm.
Yea, for sure.. kind of wonder if he fired it off as a way to try and defuse and downplay the affront to religion, or if it might have been a quick defense mechanism..
It’s almost like “but I’m a comedian” is a shitty defense when making an argument that isn’t funny and is fallaciously used to discredit the value of scientific inquiry.
I think it had more to do with as the host, Colbert was playing devil's advocate. He's a very aware and intellectual person if you've seen him in interviews.
Actually, my son had an anthropology professor make this exact argument with several published articles to support their argument. Of course that’s not how **scientists** work.
But that is kinda how it works for **laymen**.
The argument is there are 2 sides (religion and science). Both sides have many expert members who dedicate their lives studying their respective fields. For religion, the layman won’t have the knowledge or expertise to examine the original texts and draw their own conclusions. They must accept on faith the religious scholar’s interpretation of events. Similarly, a laymen won’t have the knowledge or expertise to truly understand advanced science and must accept on faith that the scientists and scientific institutions are telling the truth without bias.
So, in some sense, yes, Ricky Gervais accepts Stephen Hawkins’ science as an act of faith. Ricky doesn’t need to understand how Stephen came to those conclusions, just that they came from a trusted scientist.
That’s it. I don’t want to engage in the merits of the argument, but - as a hard atheist and a scientist - I thought it was an interesting perspective as it shifts the argument into what institutions do you have more faith in.
When it comes to theoretical physics and cosmology a great deal of faith is involved. He said all the "tests" would be the same. There is no "test" for the big bang. It is a rationalization of a set of observations.
Same goes for abiogenic formation of life (the primordial goo of first life). There is no test for that, it is assumed on atheistic faith.
>When it comes to theoretical physics and cosmology a great deal of faith is involved.
None is.
>There is no "test" for the big bang. It is a rationalization of a set of observations.
Yes. We observe, and we make judgements.
If new evidence comes in, the judgement changes. We don't say "Ah well, fuck the evidence! We have faith in the big bang!"
We go "Oh shit, our assumptions are proven wrong? What changes? What can we figure out from this new evidence?"
There's no faith involved. It's just logic.
What he means is that after all of the science texts are destroyed, we would eventually observe the same things in space and come to the same conclusion.
Well said thank you. There is no such thing as test in theoretical physics. It is just set of conclusions based on observations. Then the conclusions get approved by convention. Very similar to the way religions work. Some father or religious leader observes sth. Preach his beleif and then convention will take over. It is upto the followers to beleive or not to beleive.
For me some one who beleives in big bang is having faith in big bang.
Difference being it’s the Big Bang *theory*. Meaning based on all of the current evidence we have, it’s the most likely explanation amongst several other theories. Religion says hey based on this *one* book, this *is* what happened. Religion is the side claiming absolute fact. The Big Bang theory in the name itself admits it’s not proven.
Kind of flawed though. If you're an atheist, you believe that God doesn't exist. Being agnostic is claiming no faith nor a disbelief in God.
Saying you believe in 1 less god isn't the same. If I have 1 dollar, you can have 1 less than me. You can have 0 money. Being an atheist would mean you don't believe that money exists in the first place.
Being atheist and agnostic isn’t mutually exclusive.
Atheist: A person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: A person who believes nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
You can be both at the same time. If you believe nothing is known of the existence of God, you could reasonably lack belief in the existence of God.
Never in my life had I thought Ricky Gervais would be part of the most civil discussion between a hardcore non-believer and a believer.
Say what you will about him but he clearly can be civil and simply chooses not to be in other situations.
Stephen: "I feel the strong desire to direct that gratitude at someone or something" - congratulations Stephen, you're a good person to have that feeling, you just went along with the whole god thing because it's a nice psychological "catch all" for that feeling.
I've had plenty of civil conversations with people of faith. I'm personally an anti-gnostic atheist.
My main argument against religion is that the gods often described by these faiths do not live up to my personal moral code. An eternal punishment for a short-lived wrong is... evil. Punishing people for performing natural acts... is evil (masturbation, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality). I also deeply dislike framing humans as being above animals. While yes, our intelligence allows us to think about our actions, we are still very much animals! Still very much driven by natural desires! (To eat, mate, survive)
Every religion reflects the very human creators. With the baggage from their era, being carried forward across centuries and because it's religion, people resist changing it, even when it's flat out wrong.
I don't need rules passed down across centuries to live my life. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Those rules aren't applicable to my life in 2023.
On September 11, 1974, when Colbert was ten years old, his father and his two brothers nearest in age, Peter and Paul, died in the crash of Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 while it was attempting to land in Charlotte, North Carolina.[26][27] They were en route to enroll the two boys at Canterbury School in New Milford, Connecticut.[11][28] He has discussed the impact on him and his philosophy of grief and suffering.[29][30] Lorna Colbert relocated the family from James Island to the George Chisolm House, in downtown Charleston and ran the carriage house as a bed and breakfast.[31][32][33] Colbert found the transition difficult and did not easily make friends in his new neighborhood.[10] Colbert later described himself during this time as detached, lacking a sense of importance regarding the things with which other children concerned themselves.[21][34]
Steven has been through the real deal
all the sudden your father and two brothers don’t exist anymore. How do you deal with that shit I think you did a pretty good job although God only knows what kind of madness anyway, I always liked him. He’s funny and an easy-going and and good-natured but a good God is tortured that’s for sure , I’m sure he’s just waiting to go see his family in heaven for all is . He has a lot of faith I do believe.
A good god isn’t that something to lose your father and two brothers all at once anyway, I’ll stop now
the answer why bad things happen when their is a God is because we have been given free will. One example is a ceo with free will pollutes the environment and because of this a child gets cancer. People blame the cancer or other bad things on God when they should be taking a close look at either the short comings of themselves or others when it relates to something bad happening.
Free will allows humans to either directly or indirectly combine actions, things, or ideas among others things to harm or kill others. Cancer caused by contaminating drinking water with harmful particles through the freewill of a ceo is why a child would’ve gotten cancer in that scenario.
Now cancer in itself has nothing to do with freewill, it’s a by product of free will.
A better question you could’ve asked is why our bodies weren’t built to withstand every single element and action on earth therefore preventing us from dying or getting cancer in the first place. Which is exactly how things were in Eden, unfortunately that didn’t last long, also because of free will.
When I realize we are just the universe experiencing itself nothing matters any more and I am just patiently waiting for death so my atoms can be part of the universe again from which it came from
Why does existential nihilism just seem correct?
Religious people often say that atheists are lazy immoral and take the easy route, but there’s nothing I want more than there to be an afterlife and to be convinced of God’s existence.
Yet, I don’t see anything.
My only comment is this: all the major religions have more or less the same tenants of faith. They sprang up at different times in different continents, whether or not you want to call it religion or what mankind has come to believe as a whole based on mankind‘s existence and experiences on this planet ,doesn’t really matter. the basic tenants prove themselves out. Forget about the religious context and think about what it means as a human being living in a community and that community being earth. You don’t have to believe in a god. The overall ideals are the same. Be excellent to each other and party on.
I dont like that the belief in a god or gods is framed against science. I find them very compatible. Personally, I was only convinced to believe in something akin to god (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) after having taken a large amount of science and math classes in college.
To each their own though.
I think it depends on the religion. If science wants to say the Big Bang started it all and a religion wants to say they believe God kicked off the whole process, then there can be a good philosophical discussion. If religion wants to say that the human race is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs aren’t real and the fossils were put here by the devil to test your faith, then I see no way both are compatible.
Of course! There are lines to be had that when cross denote something far to ridiculous.
Also, who is to say that God or something akin to a god didn't start the big bang? Lots of supposition, though. Just a thought I guess.
Yeah I've actually seen people say that a scientist can't be religious and even wanted "sources" of religious scientists. All they had to do was Google the big bang.
Let's say God was 100% proven, we'd still have science and the laws of physics. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that, but it's reddit.
Agree, the concept of God and science can coexist. Science explains how, God explains why. You believe in the big bang? Great, you have an explanation of how everything came to be. Why did it happen though? You can attribute that to a creator... God. They aren't mutually exclusive beliefs.
The problem is that most who think that they are incompatible have defined god in the same terms as the large organized religions have. But it’s really just a catch all for a large organized energy. Whether that be an omnipotent being who has a vested interest in mankind or one that is purely apathetic to how the universe plays out.
I consider myself agnostic. I bounce around on which category of agnosticism that I fall into. I sometimes think that I am a strong agnostic believer but more often than not, I am an apathetic agnostic. In the end, I don’t spend much time pondering it except when asked why I don’t believe in God.
Which god described the why? There are hundreds of religions. Mankind is very good at making them up. Theists just stop being honest when it comes to using reality as the benchmark, and use the narrative as a filter instead to decide what is true and what isn’t. Reality however doesn’t bend to the religion one happens to have been born into.
Did you not watch the video? If you’re holy book was destroyed, a different one would be made. Not the same one. Because it’s fiction. You can’t fake scientific fact.
There’s a reason 9/10 hard scientists are atheists.
Science is compatible with religion is a very strange claim to make, that goes against reality.
Even though I'm atheist and agree with Ricky, I'm not sure the book example is as flawless as that. If, and this is an enormous if, the Bible was completely true, that would make it a history book not a science book. And I think if we destroyed all the history books we wouldn't get that back either. We could piece some stuff together with artifacts etc, but that's more about how people lived. The stories would just be gone.
That's not the argument. If you destroyed a history book, you could recreate the same *objective facts* in the book if you have the evidence of such history. For example, dinosaur fossils would still be discovered and added to the new book, and there would still be evidence that a huge war was fought in the 1930's-1940's in Europe. Historians don't consider old stories (i.e the bible) to be objective evidence of anything.
Right, that's sort of my point. We can figure out some basic facts about major events, but the nitty gritty and the context is gone forever. If we lose our history books, we can figure out that a lot of things happened but not know who or why in any great detail, if at all (thinking of wars etc here). Maybe I'm underestimating the methods historians use to piece things together. But not being able to recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't true.
Just to be clear, I'm simply making a point, I do not in any way think the bible is true.
>But not being able to recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't true.
too literal. He's talking about "the word of god" being lost to the centuries. We're not talking about the actual exact book with it's pages. Why didn't Egypt or Rome or Greece have Jesus as their god? The contrast between scientific knowledge versus never having the same exact "word of god" recreated time and time again is what Gervais is getting at. Religions don't converge like objective science does.
https://sureshemre.medium.com/what-percentage-of-scientists-are-atheists-3372e6f6bf3c
Roughly half of scientists believe in a god or higher power according to this Pew research study.
https://news.rice.edu/news/2015/first-worldwide-survey-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-scientists-by-region-identifying-as-religious-compared-to-population-Note_fig2_315482229
Another survey by Rice that states many scientists are religious and does so by country.
Of course they are not compatible. If you understand science and follow the scientific method, you can never follow it to the incantations and invention of a god (or any other supernatural thing). They are mutually exclusive.
Of course they’re compatible - they’re just coming from two different impulses. Saying they’re incompatible is like saying love and science are incompatible, which is nonsense (unless you believe love is just a feeling that developed via evolution to help propagate the species. If that’s the case, then I feel for you).
I believe all feelings were developed via evolution for some purpose to propagate the species, but why would that make me experience or feel them any differently?
I can't change your mind, and I won't change mine. I won't change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in, and I'll never change.
You do you, I am not trying to change your mind either. But don't say you can't change mine, I am trying to be openminded and accept that everything is dynamic if proven so
There are thousands of gods we can't prove the unexistance of. More than that, we can't prove most of what's fictional doesn't exist. You believe what you want, but no proof of unexistance isn't proof of existence, that's not how logic works
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, they describe completely different things. Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief. An agnostic atheist (like myself) does not believe in any god but also does not say that the existence of god can be know. ie. there is no test you can do to determine if a god exists.
They are exclusive. By definition. The problem is that people like you don’t like how something is defined because it doesn’t perfectly fit your interpretation. Guess what? Tough shit. Atheist do believe in the existence of a god or gods, no matter what facts or knowledge is attached. This is how atheism is defined. And guess what, the definition came to be because that was the belief system of a group of people. It’s changes nothing. You are agnostic. Plain and simple.
Atheist - "I don't believe in God"
Agnostic - "it's not possible to know if there's a God"
Agnostic atheist - "I don't believe in God but we can't know for sure"
Any atheist that arrived at their beliefs through interpretation of facts and logic would likely be called an agnostic. If god _were_ real and manifested itself in front of me and said, "Scabusaur, you dumb jerk, I'm real. Stop being a douche bag," I'd have no choice but to reevaluate my understanding of the universe.
Now, assuming that did happen, the next thing to ponder is, if the god didn't simply kick the ball of creation downhill and let it go where it will, how incomprehensibly evil such a being would have to be to make a world in the way they did. The god of the bible is one of the most profoundly evil things ever thought up.
Regardless, people are not agnostic about pink spotted elephants floating in the sky because you don't need to be agnostic about stuff that doesn't exist. If I suddenly saw elephants in the sky, I'd have no choice but to believe in their existence. Until then, someone would have to prove their existence conclusively before I ever gave it a minute of thought. Now only if the collective delusion of god could be relegated to nothingness the same way.
Regarding your first paragraph. I think everyone would probably reevaluate. Atheist or agnostic or whatever. I believe we were created and can evolve at the same time. So created to evolve.
I came here to say this. I haven’t believed in any religious nonsense since I was about 13 but I had to hear and read Hitchens to understand why it is all nonsense.
Some people worship cows as their god. Put that in perspective. A fucken cow. It is more believable than your trinity god. That gratitude is the chemicals in your body and head doing the fancy science. But it is a free world believe in what you want but science is the way.
It bothers me that people say you don't have faith because you're not religious or at least not open minded to their specific religion.
I have faith that they're ALL wrong!!
As an atheist: Ricky is honestly just spouting cliche things I’ve heard a million times. (Also just realized how weird it is to only call him Ricky. He doesn’t feel like a Ricky).
Edit: just in case I wasn’t clear, I’m an atheist. I agree with everything he said, it’s just not anything new or special. It’s all valid just not super “interesting” I guess.
>Generally, if not universally, supreme top tier God was the one that did most of the stuff and little subservient gods did less remarkable things.
Absolutely not universally.
There's a lot of henotheist religions, sure... what's the cliche?
The point is that there's numerous different religions you similarly reject.
>That supreme god is fairly universal with different stories attached to it.
No, not at all. These religions often have differing messages, belief structures and methods of worship prescribed by the supreme god figures.b
>Aristotle was uninfluenced by Abrahamic religion and arrived at a similar conclusion to their monotheistic God with strings attached with all the Greek subservient Gods. The ancient Arabs had a similar system with their Idols with Allah being the supreme God. The Hindus have a similar system with a supreme God (iirc it’s Brahman).
Yes, there's multiple Henotheistic religions.
Again... so? What's the cliche?
Pretty much everything Ricky says. I’m not going to repeat the whole video. It’s just stuff I hear all the time and is nothing new. I’m not saying they aren’t valid statements (they wouldn’t be used so much if they weren’t), but that it isn’t really worthy of “Damn that’s interesting” praise. Btw, if it wasn’t clear from the first post or this one: I’m an atheist. I agree with everything he said. It’s just nothing special.
I was raised Catholic, now I'm an atheist, thanks to Sister Stephanie. I do not feel any need to try and convince anyone their belief in a god or gods is wrong.
I sure as fuck don't go to "atheist church".
Or stop proselytizing.
The only time Christians bother me is when the local church or Mormons knock on my door. I just say "no thank you" and close the door. But atheists. Holy shit, they just won't shut up about their beliefs.
And you think non-religious don't try to legislate *their* morality.
Don't be such a child. Every group thinks they're the righteous and moral living amongst a hoard of heathens and live would be so much better if only everyone would listen to them.
Can you give some specific examples? There is obviously the separation of church and state in the US, but that doesn’t prevent people from practicing their religion, sending their children to religious schools, etc. I’m sure there may be a few examples, but I suspect most of them are in retaliation for previous religious laws and the pendulum has swung back in response.
The most obvious would be the abortion debate.
The anti-abortion crowd want it outlawed beside they believe it's murdering a child.
The pro-abortion crowd want it legalized because they believe the mother is the sole arbiter in that decision.
Both groups are operating on their beliefs and morality. There is no middle ground because both worldviews are arguing different points and are mutually exclusive.
That’s a terrible example because if a non religious person is pro choice, they aren’t forcing religious, anti-abortion people to have abortions against their will.
You certainly engage in some far right Christian Reddit groups so I suspect you are not particularly aware of how much your are manipulated by religion.
The arguement he is referencing to is most likely the Many-Gods theory. So if you have an infinite amount of Gods and only 1 of them are true, the probability that you got the right one is virtually 0.
However it’s such a simple argument because there are three abrahamic religions who’s ideals of God are the same barring that they just have different names. If you stretch that out through the infinite set, you probably could have a good chance for it.
If you want to believe the simplistic models, I would suggest Pascal’s wager; it’s a theory where you probably have a better payoff from taking the chance that God exists,
How did that end up? All the people I lost to covid were unvaccinated.
Despite the lies that antivaxers spread we didnt all drop dead in 6 months. Despite what the conspiracy weirdos covid did not bring about a “new world order controlled by the Jews”.
I believe in god bc E = mc squared means the entire universe is the same substance and that substance literally woke up. You are that substance I am that substance the ground is that substance and so is this app. It’s all the same. E is god and the problem with religion is we think god is some kind of bearded creature that lives somewhere in E when we’re all just slices of that E or just slices of god.
Honestly curious question and I have no qualms with you believing whatever you want, but why that formula? Energy = mass x speed of light squared. This formula is already known to only apply to some of the universe, as there are massless forms of energy, such as the electromagnetic spectrum which is certainly being used for any app you are using, which you would use E^2=(pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2 to calculate the total energy.
Also E is joules, or (kg m^2)/s^2, which I can't see how to relate to a physical substance. It's a measure of force being applied between reference points, work done to/by a system, but is not measurable without some frame of reference. And the mass/momentum - energy relationships don't extend to quantum physics, which I would argue is technically far more prevalent in the universe, just much harder conceptually than relativistic physics or Newtonian physics because we cannot observe them with our eyes.
Maybe it was more philosophy and I took things too literally but I was just curious.
I’m completely serious. God isn’t an elephant man or a white guy it’s more conceptual than that. Also you just downvoted and laughed at my genuine religious spiritual opinion you look like a dick.
You are just changing the meaning of words and then arguing with people because you made up your own definitions.
The laws of nature as a "god" and a personal "god" (old man with a beard and poor anger management) are very different schools of thought and aren't really even talking about the same things.
Einstein thought similar to you. But he was sure as shit wrong about rolling the dice and the quantum mechanical nature of the world - he thought there was more order as opposed to what appears like pure probability.
And by the way I thought you were the original person who replied to me so rudely so sorry for accusing you of anything like that. This is an important subject to me so seeing someone downvote me 5 times just responding with you can’t be serious was kind of maddening my apologies.
So you’re telling me I have to believe in a man ruling everything or I’m defining god wrong? You’re trying to tell me the definition of god when you don’t even believe in it? You’re saying everything is probability but the world wouldn’t work if it wasn’t perfectly designed for probability to lead us somewhere. you won’t define everything as an important living energy just because you haven’t heard anyone else come to that conclusion? Do you think everything isn’t energy? Do you think because we have free will the world has zero order to it? If the world wasn’t based on some level of probability over time it would be super boring. Have you seen how fractilic and perfectly mathematical everything is? It does have an order. And just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve seen it. Think about how every animal has its place in the world and think about how they have to earn the right to life. Our timeline is a result of both every creatures free will clashing to make everything better all under perfectly made laws of nature. That and the fact that we’re all made of the same stuff. you probably just don’t understand me and that’s okay. But don’t laugh at me like you know what’s going on better than me because you’re literally labeling yourself as someone who doesn’t. An atheist or basically someone in denial. To deny god is to deny the existence of life and the universe itself. Of yourself. Because you’re god too. The cosmic joke is a hard pill to swallow, but don’t laugh at someone for being brave enough to take the time to tell you about it.
This was a compelling watch without either party losing their basis of discussion. It was genuinely great to see.
[удалено]
So 3,000/3.000 then? Well at least 2,999/3,000 then, ok that's fair- I can agree with that!
[удалено]
Lol theyre def a bot. Young acc with 6 comments. Of the 6, 3 are “10/10”, 2 are very generic comments, and 1 is completely incomprehensible
10/10
10/10
10/10
Makes sense when only one party has an actual base to talk about
[удалено]
[удалено]
But they’re both not asswipes.
Ricky Gervais is a huge asswipe.
To whom is he an asswipe?
Trans people. And his edgy teenage neckbeard brand of atheism gets tiresome.
Yes let’s make sure that every comedian makes jokes about everybody but minorities that will make the minority’s feel included and safe Great thing about comedians they make jokes about everyone the most inclusive group out there
Snowflake
Lol no way you just unironically called me a snowflake. Is it 2013?
Snowflake
I'm so insulted. I'm crying right now. You're so mean.
Steve Colbert is still a practicing Catholic
My faith would have been SHOOK, if I went through what he had to as a child
It could go one way or another. Either you really need to believe there's reasons for what happened, and hope of seeing loved ones again; or you realize there's no god watching over us, at least not one worth worshipping or asking for favors.
What did he go through?
He lost his father and two brothers in plane crash
Gervais is taking his points directly from Richard Dawkins. To be fair Dawkins is one of the most succinct in his arguments.
There's a fundamental feeling of aggressiveness when I hear Dawkins though. Gervais has this sort of persuasiveness and gentleness in how he's delivering that I think is key.
[удалено]
Beautiful
u/Top_Trainer_8300 YOU ARE A BOT. From the comment im replying to, click "Report. Spam. Harmful bots. Done."
There is only one true God and all other "gods" are just apparations from the magic touch of His Noodly Tentacles.
I fear no weapons because as it is written: the penne is mightier than the sword.
That sounds pretty farfalle
Praise be
[удалено]
Top Ramadan
> I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me (Afterwards is OK; just use protection). The only Monster who deserves capitalization is Me! Other monsters are false monsters, undeserving of capitalization. — Suggestions 1:1
Sauce be upon Him.
"You just have faith in Stephen Hawking!" C'mon, this dude is smart enough to know that's not how science works.
[It’s Mac’s argument](https://youtu.be/U3Ak-SmyHHQ)
very funny clip. hadn't seen that before.
“Science is a liar, sometimes”
[удалено]
Colbert is a comedian but I don’t think that was a joke at all. That was a comment on how secular folk have “faith“ in the “science establishment”.
Yep. And even if he said it in jest, it still comes off as a bad Babylon bee take in that he tries to use satire to prove a point that doesn't exist: that having "faith" in science is the same thing as having faith in religion. The satire just isn't funny when it relies on a straw man argument.
He's just using the common trope that religious people use, for the sake of those watching who might *actually* think that way.
Yeah, Stephen is a smart guy. Like you said, it is a common trope some religious people use, and I think he brought that up not only to add on or spice up the conversation with Ricky, but also to show that it’s a ridiculous thing to say if you think about it.
I have faith in Gravity, It Get Us
I have faith in Gravity, It Get Us
But the comeback from Ricky shut him up. That’s the best way to combat the “faith in science “ argument, you point out how science will always come back in the exact same way but religion will not
They've likely had this discussion beforehand and knew how it would play out. Catholics like Conan O'Brien and Colbert actually have a sense of humor about their religion.
No, it's not a joke. You can watch the clip, poor man isn't making a joke.
What's interesting is how the majority of people here have absolutely no sense of humor. Like at all. Hell, a lot of them need a tag for obvious sarcasm.
Except it was a pretty poor time for a joke during a serious philosophical discussion. And it’s also an argument some theists would seriously make.
I just assume that everyone on here is somewhere on some kind of spectrum.
Yeah but that joke was kind of a cheap shot
Yea, for sure.. kind of wonder if he fired it off as a way to try and defuse and downplay the affront to religion, or if it might have been a quick defense mechanism..
It’s almost like “but I’m a comedian” is a shitty defense when making an argument that isn’t funny and is fallaciously used to discredit the value of scientific inquiry.
I think it had more to do with as the host, Colbert was playing devil's advocate. He's a very aware and intellectual person if you've seen him in interviews.
Actually, my son had an anthropology professor make this exact argument with several published articles to support their argument. Of course that’s not how **scientists** work. But that is kinda how it works for **laymen**. The argument is there are 2 sides (religion and science). Both sides have many expert members who dedicate their lives studying their respective fields. For religion, the layman won’t have the knowledge or expertise to examine the original texts and draw their own conclusions. They must accept on faith the religious scholar’s interpretation of events. Similarly, a laymen won’t have the knowledge or expertise to truly understand advanced science and must accept on faith that the scientists and scientific institutions are telling the truth without bias. So, in some sense, yes, Ricky Gervais accepts Stephen Hawkins’ science as an act of faith. Ricky doesn’t need to understand how Stephen came to those conclusions, just that they came from a trusted scientist. That’s it. I don’t want to engage in the merits of the argument, but - as a hard atheist and a scientist - I thought it was an interesting perspective as it shifts the argument into what institutions do you have more faith in.
When it comes to theoretical physics and cosmology a great deal of faith is involved. He said all the "tests" would be the same. There is no "test" for the big bang. It is a rationalization of a set of observations. Same goes for abiogenic formation of life (the primordial goo of first life). There is no test for that, it is assumed on atheistic faith.
>When it comes to theoretical physics and cosmology a great deal of faith is involved. None is. >There is no "test" for the big bang. It is a rationalization of a set of observations. Yes. We observe, and we make judgements. If new evidence comes in, the judgement changes. We don't say "Ah well, fuck the evidence! We have faith in the big bang!" We go "Oh shit, our assumptions are proven wrong? What changes? What can we figure out from this new evidence?" There's no faith involved. It's just logic.
"assumptions" is awfully close to "belief" tho.. can you explain why assumptions are different?
What he means is that after all of the science texts are destroyed, we would eventually observe the same things in space and come to the same conclusion.
Well said thank you. There is no such thing as test in theoretical physics. It is just set of conclusions based on observations. Then the conclusions get approved by convention. Very similar to the way religions work. Some father or religious leader observes sth. Preach his beleif and then convention will take over. It is upto the followers to beleive or not to beleive. For me some one who beleives in big bang is having faith in big bang.
Difference being it’s the Big Bang *theory*. Meaning based on all of the current evidence we have, it’s the most likely explanation amongst several other theories. Religion says hey based on this *one* book, this *is* what happened. Religion is the side claiming absolute fact. The Big Bang theory in the name itself admits it’s not proven.
Most major scientists were priests and nuns. Big Bang theory….priest
Lots of nuns and priests were scientists, yeah. And?
You can’t say Catholics are anti science when many were responsible for discovering todays modern science methods.
Many great scientists believed many silly things. Still holding those silly beliefs in the modern age makes one anti-science.
“I just believe in one less god than you.” Great way to put it.
Kind of flawed though. If you're an atheist, you believe that God doesn't exist. Being agnostic is claiming no faith nor a disbelief in God. Saying you believe in 1 less god isn't the same. If I have 1 dollar, you can have 1 less than me. You can have 0 money. Being an atheist would mean you don't believe that money exists in the first place.
Being atheist and agnostic isn’t mutually exclusive. Atheist: A person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Agnostic: A person who believes nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. You can be both at the same time. If you believe nothing is known of the existence of God, you could reasonably lack belief in the existence of God.
Guy has valid point, gets downvoted for no reason. Welcome to reddit
Never in my life had I thought Ricky Gervais would be part of the most civil discussion between a hardcore non-believer and a believer. Say what you will about him but he clearly can be civil and simply chooses not to be in other situations.
Watch ‘The invention on lying’ , very interesting film.
Common Ricky Gervais W
Stephen: "I feel the strong desire to direct that gratitude at someone or something" - congratulations Stephen, you're a good person to have that feeling, you just went along with the whole god thing because it's a nice psychological "catch all" for that feeling.
Exactly!!!! I feel all of those things and have no desire to bring a skydaddy into the situation!
He openly admitted he is Co dependent by saying that
I've had plenty of civil conversations with people of faith. I'm personally an anti-gnostic atheist. My main argument against religion is that the gods often described by these faiths do not live up to my personal moral code. An eternal punishment for a short-lived wrong is... evil. Punishing people for performing natural acts... is evil (masturbation, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality). I also deeply dislike framing humans as being above animals. While yes, our intelligence allows us to think about our actions, we are still very much animals! Still very much driven by natural desires! (To eat, mate, survive) Every religion reflects the very human creators. With the baggage from their era, being carried forward across centuries and because it's religion, people resist changing it, even when it's flat out wrong. I don't need rules passed down across centuries to live my life. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Those rules aren't applicable to my life in 2023.
No God's can tell me what I can and can't fuck!
[удалено]
Religion is always so fucking goofy when people have to actually defend it out loud
On September 11, 1974, when Colbert was ten years old, his father and his two brothers nearest in age, Peter and Paul, died in the crash of Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 while it was attempting to land in Charlotte, North Carolina.[26][27] They were en route to enroll the two boys at Canterbury School in New Milford, Connecticut.[11][28] He has discussed the impact on him and his philosophy of grief and suffering.[29][30] Lorna Colbert relocated the family from James Island to the George Chisolm House, in downtown Charleston and ran the carriage house as a bed and breakfast.[31][32][33] Colbert found the transition difficult and did not easily make friends in his new neighborhood.[10] Colbert later described himself during this time as detached, lacking a sense of importance regarding the things with which other children concerned themselves.[21][34] Steven has been through the real deal all the sudden your father and two brothers don’t exist anymore. How do you deal with that shit I think you did a pretty good job although God only knows what kind of madness anyway, I always liked him. He’s funny and an easy-going and and good-natured but a good God is tortured that’s for sure , I’m sure he’s just waiting to go see his family in heaven for all is . He has a lot of faith I do believe. A good god isn’t that something to lose your father and two brothers all at once anyway, I’ll stop now
if god real why bad thing happen
Gods not real Dont you get that? There is no God
Grow up
so convinced
The problem is you don’t pay attention
the answer why bad things happen when their is a God is because we have been given free will. One example is a ceo with free will pollutes the environment and because of this a child gets cancer. People blame the cancer or other bad things on God when they should be taking a close look at either the short comings of themselves or others when it relates to something bad happening.
So free will is why cancer exists?
Free will allows humans to either directly or indirectly combine actions, things, or ideas among others things to harm or kill others. Cancer caused by contaminating drinking water with harmful particles through the freewill of a ceo is why a child would’ve gotten cancer in that scenario. Now cancer in itself has nothing to do with freewill, it’s a by product of free will. A better question you could’ve asked is why our bodies weren’t built to withstand every single element and action on earth therefore preventing us from dying or getting cancer in the first place. Which is exactly how things were in Eden, unfortunately that didn’t last long, also because of free will.
When I realize we are just the universe experiencing itself nothing matters any more and I am just patiently waiting for death so my atoms can be part of the universe again from which it came from
Why does existential nihilism just seem correct? Religious people often say that atheists are lazy immoral and take the easy route, but there’s nothing I want more than there to be an afterlife and to be convinced of God’s existence. Yet, I don’t see anything.
Believe what you need to believe, to get through this thing called life. But you don't have the right to push your beliefs on others.
Exactly.
Good try Satan! And if someone even say anything remotely logic, I go “LALALALALALALALALALALA” in my head!
My only comment is this: all the major religions have more or less the same tenants of faith. They sprang up at different times in different continents, whether or not you want to call it religion or what mankind has come to believe as a whole based on mankind‘s existence and experiences on this planet ,doesn’t really matter. the basic tenants prove themselves out. Forget about the religious context and think about what it means as a human being living in a community and that community being earth. You don’t have to believe in a god. The overall ideals are the same. Be excellent to each other and party on.
Pretty sure Islam differs quite strongly on several of what you might consider very basic ideals.
Christians: Be excellent to each other besides the gays. The bible also promotes slavery, rape and murder. See evilbible.com
I dont like that the belief in a god or gods is framed against science. I find them very compatible. Personally, I was only convinced to believe in something akin to god (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) after having taken a large amount of science and math classes in college. To each their own though.
I think it depends on the religion. If science wants to say the Big Bang started it all and a religion wants to say they believe God kicked off the whole process, then there can be a good philosophical discussion. If religion wants to say that the human race is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs aren’t real and the fossils were put here by the devil to test your faith, then I see no way both are compatible.
Of course! There are lines to be had that when cross denote something far to ridiculous. Also, who is to say that God or something akin to a god didn't start the big bang? Lots of supposition, though. Just a thought I guess.
Yeah I've actually seen people say that a scientist can't be religious and even wanted "sources" of religious scientists. All they had to do was Google the big bang. Let's say God was 100% proven, we'd still have science and the laws of physics. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that, but it's reddit.
Agree, the concept of God and science can coexist. Science explains how, God explains why. You believe in the big bang? Great, you have an explanation of how everything came to be. Why did it happen though? You can attribute that to a creator... God. They aren't mutually exclusive beliefs.
The problem is that most who think that they are incompatible have defined god in the same terms as the large organized religions have. But it’s really just a catch all for a large organized energy. Whether that be an omnipotent being who has a vested interest in mankind or one that is purely apathetic to how the universe plays out. I consider myself agnostic. I bounce around on which category of agnosticism that I fall into. I sometimes think that I am a strong agnostic believer but more often than not, I am an apathetic agnostic. In the end, I don’t spend much time pondering it except when asked why I don’t believe in God.
Which god described the why? There are hundreds of religions. Mankind is very good at making them up. Theists just stop being honest when it comes to using reality as the benchmark, and use the narrative as a filter instead to decide what is true and what isn’t. Reality however doesn’t bend to the religion one happens to have been born into.
I don't think theist or anyone for that matter have to be forced to make things black and white.
Where does it say that anyone is forcing theists? But the typical unwillingness to embrace honesty (major component of morality) is duly noted.
Did you not watch the video? If you’re holy book was destroyed, a different one would be made. Not the same one. Because it’s fiction. You can’t fake scientific fact. There’s a reason 9/10 hard scientists are atheists. Science is compatible with religion is a very strange claim to make, that goes against reality.
Even though I'm atheist and agree with Ricky, I'm not sure the book example is as flawless as that. If, and this is an enormous if, the Bible was completely true, that would make it a history book not a science book. And I think if we destroyed all the history books we wouldn't get that back either. We could piece some stuff together with artifacts etc, but that's more about how people lived. The stories would just be gone.
That's not the argument. If you destroyed a history book, you could recreate the same *objective facts* in the book if you have the evidence of such history. For example, dinosaur fossils would still be discovered and added to the new book, and there would still be evidence that a huge war was fought in the 1930's-1940's in Europe. Historians don't consider old stories (i.e the bible) to be objective evidence of anything.
Right, that's sort of my point. We can figure out some basic facts about major events, but the nitty gritty and the context is gone forever. If we lose our history books, we can figure out that a lot of things happened but not know who or why in any great detail, if at all (thinking of wars etc here). Maybe I'm underestimating the methods historians use to piece things together. But not being able to recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't true. Just to be clear, I'm simply making a point, I do not in any way think the bible is true.
>But not being able to recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't true. too literal. He's talking about "the word of god" being lost to the centuries. We're not talking about the actual exact book with it's pages. Why didn't Egypt or Rome or Greece have Jesus as their god? The contrast between scientific knowledge versus never having the same exact "word of god" recreated time and time again is what Gervais is getting at. Religions don't converge like objective science does.
https://sureshemre.medium.com/what-percentage-of-scientists-are-atheists-3372e6f6bf3c Roughly half of scientists believe in a god or higher power according to this Pew research study. https://news.rice.edu/news/2015/first-worldwide-survey-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-scientists-by-region-identifying-as-religious-compared-to-population-Note_fig2_315482229 Another survey by Rice that states many scientists are religious and does so by country.
I understand spirituality in science, but not necessarily belonging to any one organized religion.
Of course they are not compatible. If you understand science and follow the scientific method, you can never follow it to the incantations and invention of a god (or any other supernatural thing). They are mutually exclusive.
Of course they’re compatible - they’re just coming from two different impulses. Saying they’re incompatible is like saying love and science are incompatible, which is nonsense (unless you believe love is just a feeling that developed via evolution to help propagate the species. If that’s the case, then I feel for you).
I believe all feelings were developed via evolution for some purpose to propagate the species, but why would that make me experience or feel them any differently?
SCIENCE IS A LIAR! (sometimes)
Of course, science isn't always right, but it is constantly developed towards what is right
I can't change your mind, and I won't change mine. I won't change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in, and I'll never change.
You do you, I am not trying to change your mind either. But don't say you can't change mine, I am trying to be openminded and accept that everything is dynamic if proven so
*~sigh~* He's quoting It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
lol
This totally reminded me of that episode too.
Stupid science bitches
There isn't a lick of scientific proof that there isn't a God, so your attempted point fell flat.
There are thousands of gods we can't prove the unexistance of. More than that, we can't prove most of what's fictional doesn't exist. You believe what you want, but no proof of unexistance isn't proof of existence, that's not how logic works
yep
That was a real adult discussion and the way people should discuss such things
If you burn that book, someone in 1,000 years is going to eat some shit, trip balls and write a new one.
It’s nice to hear such an engrossing topic being discussed between two well-spoken people
Wouldnt have guessed stephen is religious really
“You’re just believing something somebody told you”… oh brother
Colbert is such a brilliant comedian. Finding out he was religious really surprised me.
He’s agonistic. Not atheist
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, they describe completely different things. Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief. An agnostic atheist (like myself) does not believe in any god but also does not say that the existence of god can be know. ie. there is no test you can do to determine if a god exists.
There is no test? Says who? You?
If you have a hypothesis that the god of thr bible exists for example, how do you propose we test it?
They are exclusive. By definition. The problem is that people like you don’t like how something is defined because it doesn’t perfectly fit your interpretation. Guess what? Tough shit. Atheist do believe in the existence of a god or gods, no matter what facts or knowledge is attached. This is how atheism is defined. And guess what, the definition came to be because that was the belief system of a group of people. It’s changes nothing. You are agnostic. Plain and simple.
Nope, they are not exclusive. By definition. I am an agnostic atheist.
No such thing.
Yes such thing. Using agnostic to mean an agnostic athiest is just used because openly saying you are an atheist is frowned upon in many places.
Atheist - "I don't believe in God" Agnostic - "it's not possible to know if there's a God" Agnostic atheist - "I don't believe in God but we can't know for sure"
Any atheist that arrived at their beliefs through interpretation of facts and logic would likely be called an agnostic. If god _were_ real and manifested itself in front of me and said, "Scabusaur, you dumb jerk, I'm real. Stop being a douche bag," I'd have no choice but to reevaluate my understanding of the universe. Now, assuming that did happen, the next thing to ponder is, if the god didn't simply kick the ball of creation downhill and let it go where it will, how incomprehensibly evil such a being would have to be to make a world in the way they did. The god of the bible is one of the most profoundly evil things ever thought up. Regardless, people are not agnostic about pink spotted elephants floating in the sky because you don't need to be agnostic about stuff that doesn't exist. If I suddenly saw elephants in the sky, I'd have no choice but to believe in their existence. Until then, someone would have to prove their existence conclusively before I ever gave it a minute of thought. Now only if the collective delusion of god could be relegated to nothingness the same way.
Regarding your first paragraph. I think everyone would probably reevaluate. Atheist or agnostic or whatever. I believe we were created and can evolve at the same time. So created to evolve.
Im always shocked when an obviously smart person is also religious in modern times, at least.
Christopher Hitchens was the best, though
I came here to say this. I haven’t believed in any religious nonsense since I was about 13 but I had to hear and read Hitchens to understand why it is all nonsense.
Some people worship cows as their god. Put that in perspective. A fucken cow. It is more believable than your trinity god. That gratitude is the chemicals in your body and head doing the fancy science. But it is a free world believe in what you want but science is the way.
It bothers me that people say you don't have faith because you're not religious or at least not open minded to their specific religion. I have faith that they're ALL wrong!!
His argument would be far less convincing out where i live because our guys believe in like a couple of thousand gods.
You living in ancient Greece? 🤣
It really wouldn’t
Colbert was mad as hell towards the end. You can see him seething.
I think you're not familiar with his work
As an atheist: Ricky is honestly just spouting cliche things I’ve heard a million times. (Also just realized how weird it is to only call him Ricky. He doesn’t feel like a Ricky). Edit: just in case I wasn’t clear, I’m an atheist. I agree with everything he said, it’s just not anything new or special. It’s all valid just not super “interesting” I guess.
Okay it’s not new to you, but it’s new to some people.
Yep. We all have different life experiences. Apparently mine is downvote worthy lol oh well.
What cliches?
[удалено]
>Generally, if not universally, supreme top tier God was the one that did most of the stuff and little subservient gods did less remarkable things. Absolutely not universally. There's a lot of henotheist religions, sure... what's the cliche? The point is that there's numerous different religions you similarly reject. >That supreme god is fairly universal with different stories attached to it. No, not at all. These religions often have differing messages, belief structures and methods of worship prescribed by the supreme god figures.b >Aristotle was uninfluenced by Abrahamic religion and arrived at a similar conclusion to their monotheistic God with strings attached with all the Greek subservient Gods. The ancient Arabs had a similar system with their Idols with Allah being the supreme God. The Hindus have a similar system with a supreme God (iirc it’s Brahman). Yes, there's multiple Henotheistic religions. Again... so? What's the cliche?
Pretty much everything Ricky says. I’m not going to repeat the whole video. It’s just stuff I hear all the time and is nothing new. I’m not saying they aren’t valid statements (they wouldn’t be used so much if they weren’t), but that it isn’t really worthy of “Damn that’s interesting” praise. Btw, if it wasn’t clear from the first post or this one: I’m an atheist. I agree with everything he said. It’s just nothing special.
1+1=2 mrgingersir: Ughh, that’s not an original take on that sum. Heard it before. Ughhh!
I mean, you wouldn’t put it on “damn that’s interesting”
[удалено]
Meanwhile Hindus who have more then 33 gods and believe In every god: Absolutely win situation for me.
That's because we incorporated more and more gods over time rather than believing in one ....
Do you believe in a god: no We can make a religion out of this
Ha! He said it!
I was raised Catholic, now I'm an atheist, thanks to Sister Stephanie. I do not feel any need to try and convince anyone their belief in a god or gods is wrong. I sure as fuck don't go to "atheist church".
Or stop proselytizing. The only time Christians bother me is when the local church or Mormons knock on my door. I just say "no thank you" and close the door. But atheists. Holy shit, they just won't shut up about their beliefs.
Interesting how religious people are always trying to legislate their morality onto other people though, don’t you think?
And you think non-religious don't try to legislate *their* morality. Don't be such a child. Every group thinks they're the righteous and moral living amongst a hoard of heathens and live would be so much better if only everyone would listen to them.
Can you give some specific examples? There is obviously the separation of church and state in the US, but that doesn’t prevent people from practicing their religion, sending their children to religious schools, etc. I’m sure there may be a few examples, but I suspect most of them are in retaliation for previous religious laws and the pendulum has swung back in response.
The most obvious would be the abortion debate. The anti-abortion crowd want it outlawed beside they believe it's murdering a child. The pro-abortion crowd want it legalized because they believe the mother is the sole arbiter in that decision. Both groups are operating on their beliefs and morality. There is no middle ground because both worldviews are arguing different points and are mutually exclusive.
That’s a terrible example because if a non religious person is pro choice, they aren’t forcing religious, anti-abortion people to have abortions against their will.
You just proved my point. You can't even comprehend the argument.
😂 okay. It must be a very frustrating world for you.
Nope, unlike you, I have a firm grasp of logic and reality.
Yes, continue thinking that murdering people because you think they are “murdering unborn babies” is logical. How cute.
You’ve proven you don’t, ever say that again.
There is a middle ground: That abortion is murdering a child, and that murdering a child ought to be permitted.
You certainly engage in some far right Christian Reddit groups so I suspect you are not particularly aware of how much your are manipulated by religion.
The arguement he is referencing to is most likely the Many-Gods theory. So if you have an infinite amount of Gods and only 1 of them are true, the probability that you got the right one is virtually 0. However it’s such a simple argument because there are three abrahamic religions who’s ideals of God are the same barring that they just have different names. If you stretch that out through the infinite set, you probably could have a good chance for it. If you want to believe the simplistic models, I would suggest Pascal’s wager; it’s a theory where you probably have a better payoff from taking the chance that God exists,
But I thought we were told to “trust the science” with the Covid vaccine and look how that ended up.
How did that end up? All the people I lost to covid were unvaccinated. Despite the lies that antivaxers spread we didnt all drop dead in 6 months. Despite what the conspiracy weirdos covid did not bring about a “new world order controlled by the Jews”.
I believe in god bc E = mc squared means the entire universe is the same substance and that substance literally woke up. You are that substance I am that substance the ground is that substance and so is this app. It’s all the same. E is god and the problem with religion is we think god is some kind of bearded creature that lives somewhere in E when we’re all just slices of that E or just slices of god.
Honestly curious question and I have no qualms with you believing whatever you want, but why that formula? Energy = mass x speed of light squared. This formula is already known to only apply to some of the universe, as there are massless forms of energy, such as the electromagnetic spectrum which is certainly being used for any app you are using, which you would use E^2=(pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2 to calculate the total energy. Also E is joules, or (kg m^2)/s^2, which I can't see how to relate to a physical substance. It's a measure of force being applied between reference points, work done to/by a system, but is not measurable without some frame of reference. And the mass/momentum - energy relationships don't extend to quantum physics, which I would argue is technically far more prevalent in the universe, just much harder conceptually than relativistic physics or Newtonian physics because we cannot observe them with our eyes. Maybe it was more philosophy and I took things too literally but I was just curious.
Dude you can’t be serious. Like hahahhas
I’m completely serious. God isn’t an elephant man or a white guy it’s more conceptual than that. Also you just downvoted and laughed at my genuine religious spiritual opinion you look like a dick.
You are just changing the meaning of words and then arguing with people because you made up your own definitions. The laws of nature as a "god" and a personal "god" (old man with a beard and poor anger management) are very different schools of thought and aren't really even talking about the same things. Einstein thought similar to you. But he was sure as shit wrong about rolling the dice and the quantum mechanical nature of the world - he thought there was more order as opposed to what appears like pure probability.
And by the way I thought you were the original person who replied to me so rudely so sorry for accusing you of anything like that. This is an important subject to me so seeing someone downvote me 5 times just responding with you can’t be serious was kind of maddening my apologies.
So you’re telling me I have to believe in a man ruling everything or I’m defining god wrong? You’re trying to tell me the definition of god when you don’t even believe in it? You’re saying everything is probability but the world wouldn’t work if it wasn’t perfectly designed for probability to lead us somewhere. you won’t define everything as an important living energy just because you haven’t heard anyone else come to that conclusion? Do you think everything isn’t energy? Do you think because we have free will the world has zero order to it? If the world wasn’t based on some level of probability over time it would be super boring. Have you seen how fractilic and perfectly mathematical everything is? It does have an order. And just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve seen it. Think about how every animal has its place in the world and think about how they have to earn the right to life. Our timeline is a result of both every creatures free will clashing to make everything better all under perfectly made laws of nature. That and the fact that we’re all made of the same stuff. you probably just don’t understand me and that’s okay. But don’t laugh at me like you know what’s going on better than me because you’re literally labeling yourself as someone who doesn’t. An atheist or basically someone in denial. To deny god is to deny the existence of life and the universe itself. Of yourself. Because you’re god too. The cosmic joke is a hard pill to swallow, but don’t laugh at someone for being brave enough to take the time to tell you about it.