Atheists COMPLETELY miss THIS point | Ricky Gervais

My first video on YouTube was about Ricky Gervais who tried to hide behind his silly definition of atheism. I received a lot of comments from atheists who were, to say the least, not happy with my evaluation. I noticed that they all said similar things in response to my video. In this video I will respond to the three major criticisms and show you that their comments totally miss the point.

0:00 Introduction
0:40 Different definitions of atheism
6:24 Atheism is not a worldview
7:42 Analogies burden of proof
10:46 Conclusion
#rickygervais #atheism #apologetics

--- YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY ---

Is Christianity the Only Truth? My Response to a Progressive Christian Theologian

Jordan Peterson on Claiming Belief in God (Christian Response)

[willthewhale]

You're right. If someone simply responds to the claim of the existence of God with "I don't believe you." Should be done right then and there. ...unless of course that claim of God keeps insisting and demanding responses over and over. Or if that claim of God is also claims of God's will, character, desires, laws, and more. At that point, it's pretty dang justified for a non-believer to not just sit quietly in a corner to make your belief more convenient. What utter nonsense. "If you don't believe, then just leave me alone to keep telling you why you're wrong!"

[WoWLoLSCWhatev]

First off I am an atheist, I respect your ability to get in front of the largest audience in the world (that being the internet) and trying to articulate your views, regardless of what views they are it is valiant to make the effort to disseminate your views when you believe they could be of use. However, I must say that your use of terms seems to be very misinformed. When you speak about the burden of proof you make it seems like it is something that it is not. Saying that someone has the burden of proof is simply saying that the person who makes an assertion must be the one to prove that their assertion bears consideration or has evidence to back its claims. The burden of proof isn't something that you shift at will during a debate or a conversation. In the specific conversation surrounding religion atheists (bear in mind I can only truly speak for myself though I know there are at least a good amount of atheists who would share in this view) say they do not believe that a god exists. We say this because there is no concrete evidence for the literal existence of any deific entity. I define evidence as: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. If there was in fact hard evidence of the existence of any god, let alone your specific version of god, then at least myself I would become convinced of this god like being. Due to the fact that religions on the whole are predominately reliant on faith it is an oxymoron in essence to suggest that there is evidence for the existence of god, for if there was evidence you would no longer need to rely on faith. Trying to move the burden of proof on to the basic assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of a god is at best not understanding the definition of the burden of proof, or at worst, intentionally misleading your listeners in to thinking that the burden of proof should be moved with no good reason as to why it should be moved.

[RegebroRepairs]

Nobody claims to be completely ignorant and also know things. Saying "You need to provide evidence" is not saying "I'm completely ignorant about the topic". It's saying: I know enough about the topic to realize that you have the burden of proof, and have failed in providing that evidence.

We can have a meaningful discussion if you provide evidence for the existence of God. Until then, there is no meaningful discussion to have. All there is, is educating you about the fact that you need to provide evidence.

That is all. Provide evidence that god exists, or don't. It's up to you. **But you have no demand on atheists to provide any evidence or arguments until you provide evidence of god**.

[maxdoubt]

Nope. There are _three_ types of atheists. Those who are neutral regarding gods (nonbelievers), those who believe no gods exist (disbelievers) and a very rare few who _claim_ that no gods exist. Only the latter are gnostics.

[SNORKYMEDIA]

the solution to the "fine tuning problem" is that there is no fine tuning - end of problem, no multiverse needed.

[fepeerreview]

I'm an atheist.
It's as simple as this. When you have evidence of the existence of gods or goddesses please do share it with the world. I, for one, will be happy to look at it. Until then I'm going to get on with my life. Not having seen it I'm not going to go about making important life decisions on the unsupported assumption that gods or goddesses do exist.
Please also understand that I'm talking about actual evidence. Philosophical arguments about why gods or goddesses *must* exist is NOT evidence.
Also, please keep in mind that theists have had thousands of years to prove the existence of their gods and goddesses. So far it hasn't happened. After you've looked under the sofa cushions 100 times for your missing glasses, that doesn't mean they aren't necessarily there and you should look again. But chances of finding them under that cushion on the 101st look is pretty slim. It's said absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But, eventually, the persistently stubborn refusal of evidence to appear for the existence of gods or goddesses, does begin to suggest there is *no* evidence.
So, if you want to spend your life looking for that evidence and probably not finding it, that's your choice. Mine is to get on with my life, based on the evidence about the universe that surrounds me, based on the evidence of the nature of the universe that we *do* have.

[jonrendell]

What about Inconsistency in Christianity, i.e., Baptist, Episcopalian, Evangelist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Lutheran, and Anglican.

[Devious_Dave]

Again, this channel embarrassingly misrepresents the position of others. If you want to convince non-Christians, spend time on connecting your beliefs to reality then tell us about it. The videos look nice, though.

[dersieborg]

Please note that sometimes something like a speculative multiverse may only be brought up to point out your flawed reasoning. In this case no claim of truth made just an objection to your conclusion.
To me your reasoning basically sound like this: I don't know better therefore God must exist. The fun part: You notice that the multiverse as a claim need to be demonstrated. Ask yourself why you did not find it an convincing answer to the fine-tuned problem by itself. (By the way: I can't say if universe is fine tuned or not before I understand how it comes to existence.)
You need to recognize your fallacies to understand why your reasoning is unconvincing.

[frosted]

(Facepalm) NOBODY knows what a deity is, and the lack of specificity is intentional. The assertion that ANYTHING is metaphysical shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and are willing to give yourself excuses not to examine your assertions. Playing at defining an undefinable term then pushing beLIEf into the mix simply shows a juvenile attitude and attachment to nonsense. Theists have a tempertantrum here and resort to fallacious logical argument.

[briannewton]

I came across this recently;

*Well MY take on being atheist is, it's not MY idea, I'm an atheist because of someone ELSE'S belief, it has nothing to do with me. i don't even want to be atheist.* Harry "Nic" Nicholas

Essentially, if theists, had never decided to invent the concept of a god and talk about one, then no-one would be any the wiser about the word, let alone what the concept is. As more and more theists decided that they wanted a different god, and for their gods to have different attributes, things got a bit out of hand, and more gods got 'created' These theists would disagree with other theists, saying that the god of the opposing theist is not true, as they themselves have it correct. At some point a theist will tell someone who has never heard of this god concept, expressing to them all the attributes of their god, how it created the world, and the universe, how long it took to make it etc. This poor chap listening to this thinks wow, that sounds bollocks, I don't believe that, and hence the first atheist is created. He didn't want to be an atheist, he was put in that position because a theist created the concept of a god.

You then argue :"is the reason that you are completely ignorant about the subject? then you are right, then you don't have the burden of proof"

So this newly created atheist, has just been told about what this theist believes, he therefore is now not "completely ignorant about the subject" as the theist has just told him some crazy magical thinking, and because of this, you think this atheist bears the burden of proof? Really? He didn't want to be an atheist, he just was told some crazy shit that seems far fetched, for which credible evidence to believe this stuff has not yet been presented.

[Drudenfusz]

I am an agnostic atheist, and I make no claims about evidence for or against deities, since in the end evidence is always subject to interpretation anyway and thus can only be convincing or not towards some conclusions, but they do not prove those conclusions themselves.

Evolution seems to be at least for biological information the best explanation. This might not be true, but it is the best model we have that lead to many predictions which all confirmed the theory. But this has nothing to do with deities, since many biologists working in the field accept that evolution is reality. Thus there is conflict with religion, only with certain readings of some religions, like the creationist interpretation, which is obviously false. But that doesn't negate any deities in principle.

I see no fine-tuning problem, and think that the parable of the sentient puddle shows much better why there is no fine-tuning. The multiverse is in my opinion just as much a fiction as Christianity is.

If I don't believe that there are no deities, then sure you can ask about it. But in the end it is like if one gets asked why they do not believe in unicorns or vampires or any other fictional construct. Because I simply don't see anything more in those as mere fiction. I have not to prove why I believe them to be just fiction, just like you do not have to prove that Darth Vader or Spider-Man is fiction. And well, since I answered this with fiction, instead with evidence, you could now tell me that I have the burden of proof to show it is fiction. But well, like I said, nobody expects that for any other fictional entities, so I see no reason to prove the fictionality of fictional things. Show me that those things are not fictional and then we can talk, but you can't.

I am not completely ignorant about the subject, still I just lack a belief in deities, I just see them as fiction, I see no value in those constructs. That is why I am an agnostic atheists and you are simply wrong, since nothing has changed. I still don't know if the idea of deities might align with something that might actually exist, all I can say that all the religions I looked at had rather poor conceptualisation of those entities which simply couldn't convince me that they are more than a myth which humans created.

The reincarnation example shows how confused you must be, since the agnostic atheist is exactly there, they are not convinced that the claim is true, which is exactly why they make no claims that there are no deities, only that they have none. Just like you would say you cannot disprove reincarnation, but you have no reason to think it is true either. An since you commented on reincarnation, so can the agnostic atheist comment that theism is not working for them.

Why are you such a hypocrite? If you want to talk just about the truth, then there would be no need to antagonise agnostic atheists and strawman them or frame them as the only way they can be honest is by being ignorant. You conflate there the two approaches yourself. Make clear you want to just talk about philosophical truth and leave the psychological view of people aside. Yet here we are!

Worldviews have no burdens of proof, since they are psychological states. Only hen people proclaim their worldview in form of an ideology or religion as some kind o cosmic truth, then we can have a philosophical debate about it. Again, if you want to separate those things, then actually do your do diligence and keep those things indeed apart!

Atheism is not a worldview, it is at most a part of a worldview. And no, none of the proposed questions depend on a believe in a deity. Like I said with evolution earlier, people can separate those aspects of their worldview from each other. Sure, they all seem to come in a bundle when you buy a prepackaged religion, but I thought you were interested in talking about philosophical truth, and yet here we are that you cannot even deconstruct this basic assumption of yours?

I have no burden of proof for where the universe comes from, I just don't care, the universe is there, that is enough for me. I have no burden of proof for the grounding of morality, since I am fine with just having moral intuitions. And seeing that my moral intuitions cannot justify slavery, genocide, othering and all the things that get justified with deities, I would say that deities are a horrible argument to where morals come from. But worse, I am not even a moral realist (nor a moral relativist), and moral philosophy offers other perceptions of morality outside from divine commandment theory. Have you ever even taken a single philosophy lesson, or what mentioning philosophy earlier just a red herring? New information happen all the time through emergent properties, if you drop a stone on wet sand it will leave an imprint, that imprint is right there the negative information about the shape of the stone. Or do you think your deity has to make every single say tree ring directly themselves? Which are information about the seasons. An again, I have no burden of proof regarding how life came about, since I am fine with it just existing, however you make a claim that some deity did that, thus you have to prove that, and I can just reject your divinity hypothesis without any need to come up with a different model.

Causality is a concept that works within spacetime, thus I would say both options you present for the origin of the universe are false. And no, things outside spacetime are by definition not beings, since to be requires existence in spacetime. Thus you have there are very flawed premise already. But let us be honest here, you have not thought this through, but only heard it from apologists to get to a conclusion you want to be true. Don't get me wrong, maybe some deist interpretation is the truth, but your personal being hypothesis is just garbage that holds not up in any actual philosophical inspection. Again, I thought you were interested in truth? So, why all that conformation bias?

Conclusion, you seem to have missed the point of the criticism and just keep on making silly arguments. Arguing against people instead of presenting a good and solid case for your position. Thus this video is just hypocrisy without any substance. 0/10 would not watch again.

[theoskeptomai]

There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."

Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim.

The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground.

The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground.

The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).

The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.

The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.

This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists."

The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim.

The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.

The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.

And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._

Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such  acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.

This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.

[jamesomeara]

A consideration if I may sir. It has always been my understanding atheism is a proposition, not a worldview. The proposition is important to the theist as to it denies the grounding of their thinking. But the worldview originates with whether the individual then turns to a specific view, be it humanism, existentialism, or naturalism. Dependant upon where the individual turns in their reasoning, like it or not, that may make certain of the questions irrelevant. The Marxist and the scientist are not nessecarily asking or answering the same questions in the lines of reasoning.. As to the claim the universe is made of something, thus god, or made from nothing is what the atheist must accept seems at best an arbitrary claim. There is a universe. Accepting the working standard of scientific naturalism, yes our knowledge is tentative. Most accept that it came from something or somewhere. But be it god or multiverse, or other claims, are these at best not speculative? Not being a scientist myself, I find reading and understanding what I may fascinating, but at best these seem to be claims that we don't have evidence for on either hand, and I don't know can be a very honest answer. Finally if I may, most Christians, scientists, blue collar folks what have you, are not specialists. You speak of truth seekers. That requires honesty of admitting I think x for such a reason. But admitting I have not had the time to explore or consider things in whatever light. The Christian, existentialist, or Nietzschean has working answers, but is not a specialist in the others understanding, thus we are answering these questions with what we do seem to know. Is it not dishonest if we use a body of specialized ideas upon each other, because all we will do is talk past one another? Thank you for your time.

[adamheywood]

Insofar as any position ought to be defensible, sure.
A person who does not accept a proposition does not necessarily have to prove the proposition is false, but they ought to be able to explain why they don't accept it.
In the specific case of determining whether some kind of Supreme Being exists, I don't know and I don't claim to know whether the statement "A Supreme Being exists, " is true or false. I don't believe it's true, and I don't believe it's false. _I lack belief._ And the reason I don't have a belief is because of the lack of information available to me. I don't have enough to go on either way.
Other people, however, claim that it's true, they claim to know this; and they (in fulfilling their burden of proof) present arguments to support their case.
I have encountered these arguments and I find them unconvincing because they are all either invalid or unsound, or both. In explaining that I find the arguments unconvincing, I have fulfilled _my_ burden of proof for explaining why I lack belief.
For all I know, the very next argument I encounter might be persuasive. But I don't know what it is because I haven't encountered it yet.
In the end the point is this: A person who does not know whether "A Supreme Being exists, " is true or false, a person who lacks belief, does not have to prove it true or prove it false. That is not their burden.
Our burden is to explain why we don't accept it. _And we can._

[archiegates]

You say that "we all have to answer the big questions!. Why do I have to give an answer? I have to right to discuss Your answers, without giving an alternative answer. As long I find logical errors or inconsistencies in your data for the evidence in your answer, I can point them out and refuse your anwser.

I have the obligation to explain why I refuse your evidence and conclusion. But this does not mean that I have to pretend to know the right answer. It only means I recognize a wrong one.

[fred_derf]

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is as blatant as it is pathetic.

The determination of whether someone is or is not an atheist is simple, let me help you:
If you're asked the question "Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods" and your answer is anything other than an affirmative, then you're an atheist.

Atheism had no burden of proof. Not being convinced of a claim bears no burden of proof, period. If you want to prove an atheist wrong, all you have to do is present sufficient good evidence to justify the belief in a god or gods -- so far no one has been able to do so. If you don't like that, tough. Reality has no duty to make you like it.

[slothape]

I don't believe in god but I will be the first to admit that a lot of people claiming to be atheists because they lack a belief don't understand how burdens of proof even work.

[fepeerreview]

0:48 Your channel came to my attention because Creaky Blinder has just released a video about this. I just wanted to share a thought with you and your audience on the subject.
*Both* the gnostic atheist and the theist are making claims. So I suppose it's fair to say that both bear a burden of proof. However the gnostic atheist is being asked to prove the non-existence of something and the theist is being asked to prove the existence of something. Proving the non-existence of something is, at a certain logical level, next to impossible. See the "black swan" example. However, the gnostic atheists do have one HUGE advantage over theists. Despite the much simpler challenge faced by theists, they have NEVER provided a shred of evidence for any sort of gods or goddesses, despite thousands of years of trying. At a certain point, a stubbornly persistent absence of evidence can indeed be seen as an evidence of absence. The dismal failure of theists to prove the existence of their favorite gods is, in itself, the basis of proof for the non-existence of gods.
And no, philosophical arguments for the existence of a god or gods is not *evidence* for their existence.

[iljuro]

*If you call yourself an agnostic atheist and argue that you therefore don't have any burden of proof, then you should also be prepared to explain the reason why you put that label on yourself*
The evidence I've been provided with for specific deities have been too weak and ambiguous. That's it.
I default to atheism because the evidence I've been provided with for specific deities with specific properties has been to weak to be convincing.

*Claim stuff like there's no evidence for god*
That's a hyperbole and you should understand that.
What they really are saying is that "I don't know of any reliable evidence for any specific deity" or "So far I've only been presented with weak or ambiguous evidence for specific deities"

*The atheist has the responsibility to answer this question*
I can't be expected to remember all the evidence I've rejected for all the specific deities people make claims about.
There are too many deities with too many different properties for me to keep track of all the deities and all the evidence.
First you provide your best evidence for your specific version of your specific god, and then I tell you why I don't believe in that god.
Until then I have to go with something hypothetical like an absent deistic watchmaker type deity completely indistinguishable from no deity at all, and I do lack a belief in such deities because by definition there can't be evidence for such deities.

*Since there are many agnostic atheists out there who do argue vigorously against god, they are inconsistent and need to be honest and state what they do believe, instead of claiming that they just lack belief*
But they do. They state that they believe the evidence they've been provided with for specific deities has been unconvincing.
Most are also fairly well equipped to say why they don't believe in a theologically orthodox version of the christian god. But since there are too many denominations with too many inconsistencies in their god claims, it's pointless to list all possible objections until the christian provides his evidence for and the properties of his god.

*Atheism as defined as the metaphysical proposition that there are no gods*
- Notice that this is a proposition to debate, not a belief to hold.
- Notice that you need to define the term "god" used in the debate so than noone can move the goal post.
The colloquial definition of atheism is usually about global atheism. The philosophical definition is usually about local atheism.

*Any worldview that leaves out the existence of god has major implications*
It has some implications you find major. And depending on what god it leaves out those implications change drastically.

*The answers to those questions require evidence*
Yes. And without reliable evidence there are no reliable answers.

*[The atheist] has the burden of proof to explain, among other things, where the universe comes from, how our moral intuitions can be accounted for without god, how natural processes can generate new information, and how life arose from non-life etc*
No. Just no.
Without enough reliable evidence I just say that I lack a belief in any hypothesis provided so far.
Anyone attempting to answer such questions must provide plenty of reliable evidence for their specific answer and process, or they can simply be shut down.
It's not enough to come up with something you consider to be the least unintuitive answer. It needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.