The Dumbest Atheist Argument

[@AverageLobotomyFan]

As a Christian, that was one of the weakest counter-arguments I've ever witnessed

[@jackrosso1456]

Well, it's super easy to destroy that argument I could do perfection.

[@pyroblast3000]

​@@jackrosso1456do it...

[@jackrosso1456]

@@pyroblast3000 the question is "If god exist which God out of the thousands is the right god?". First of all Q: why do we even need to research the question? A: To avoid hell. 1: We have to assume that God is just and cares about us becauss if he's not we are screwed in all cases. 2: - A just god wouldn't punish those who genuinly tried to find him but failed Conclusion: to avoid the punishment of a just God we only have to try. Next issue Q: "How do we know that we have tried?" - A just god that is just and cares wouldn't hide under a rock in the desert and punish you of not following his commands. - The real God if he's just he should be available to you and popular enough. And out of those thousands God: 60% of the world population believe in the same god: Allah 16% are atheists 20% hinduism/buddhism Q: Where are the thousands Gods? They are in the last 4% see how evil someone should be to throw such a misleading claim? - let's cut the bullshit it's not buddheism (they have no god and just and evolution of the clash between Islam and hinduism) or hinduism (The cow lord or monkey God)?. There is really one option that holds its ground it's "Alllah". Next issue: "Allah according to who" Christian: according to jesus who died for our sins. he's the father of Jesus. - Jews: jesus is a false prophet Mary give birth to jesus through prostition - Islam: Jesus tge messiah is a prophet with miraculous birth with no father and he's not God/son of God. One of them is racial religion that you can't convert to and out of the last 2 only 1 that makes the sense. Now Put my finger on the exact loophole in my stream of thought. I dare you.

[@bothunter5133]

​@@jackrosso1456 do it

[@ChristopherAdrien-zt7tb]

You truly have a better sense of logic than most

[@eerohongisto821]

The point is that the other 2999 answers are just as likely to be correct as your answer. And just because you are convinced your anwer is correct doesn't prove anything since people who believe in the alternative answers are just as convinced as you are.

[@ungas024]

Are you implying that Ricky is an agnostic, not an atheis?, How about following the evidence? Do Krishna exist? What is the evidence that krishna exists? Did Muhammad talk to an angel in a cave? Who is with him, and what miracle did he perform because most prophets in Judaism perform miracles and/or the gift of dreams (knowing the future).

[@Mizznimal]

@@ungas024 read the vedas. Read the koran. there's your "evidence"

[@alexmueller828]

The God who tells people to commit jihad or that comes down and impregnates half the female population, turning them into demigods (Zeus) is just as likely to exist as the God Brian believes in, who at least existed and was crucified based on historically verifiable evidence (even if you don't think He's God)?

[@abbadon9693]

But the thing is, that would only be correct if it was purely a matter of chance. Applying the math argument to that would basically be saying that it's a complete matter of chance that 1+1 equals 2. And that it's just as likely that 1+1 equals any other number that exists. And it doesn't really matter if a bunch of other people are fully convinced that 1+1 equals 3, or 4, or five, and so on. That still doesn't change the fact that 1+1 equals 2.

[@eerohongisto821]

​@@abbadon9693religion is much more complex than 1+1=2. Have you actually studied every religion egually and found the one true one, or have you simply decided to follow the one that you were exposed to? In the latter case your chances of being right are 1 in 3000.

[@baliocelot2537]

Completely missed the point of what Ricky said. Smh.

[@sanda5226]

aside from it being wrong; this arguments merit is based on the assumption that the believe is factually the correct one

[@baliocelot2537]

@@sanda5226 Forgive me for not quite understanding you. What argument is based on the assumption that its belief is the correct one? Ricky’s?

[@sanda5226]

@@baliocelot2537 he starts the argument by knowing that 1+1=2 because it's a provable fact; if we go back and apply it to faith and religion then there is the question, how did he ever know that his believe is the one equivalent to 1+1=2? isn't he just assuming his own faith is the correct one?

[@CaptainObvious0000]

@@sanda5226 he is. he is basing the claim that his position is correct on the premise that his position is correct.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

What Ricky said was stupid. He was just using a basic category error: if you believe in a monotheistic God that maximally has all perfections (omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc.) this is a different category of belief from believing in a random god of polytheism. In rejecting polytheism you reject that large number of gods wholesale. Not in the way Gervais describes, as this arbitrary numbers game of building a case-by-case basis, treating each ‘god’ on its own merits. You reject them all by definition. His argument relies on people’s knee-jerk reaction to a large number without bothering to think about the substance of what these things being compared actually is. His point of “you might as well go one god further”, as if atheism is just a matter of degree, based on how many polytheistic gods there have been throughout history, is stupid. It’s a poverty of the English language that “God” and “gods” are used interchangeably, which is where the false equivalence comes from. It doesn’t make the substantive difference between them clear.

[@HotCoals]

Gervais: Explains the fallacy of "but what if you're wrong" Brian: "Okay but did you know that 1+1=2?"

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

That’s not what Gervais is explaining. He’s making an argument of probability which doesn’t make sense in the context he’s using it in.

[@CatOnFire]

​​@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13Incorrect. He is responding to a theist in a debate who did not accept that atheism is the default position. We all start out not believing in any deity, and so we must gather evidence to prove that one exists. We can not start from the assumption that there is a deity because that is begging the question. Everyone starts out atheistic to every deity that they haven't heard of because atheism is the default position. He was merely explaining this by pointing out that his opponent shares his atheism regarding all religions except the one that his opponent subscribes to.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

@@CatOnFire Atheism isn't the default position. Almost all atheism unknowingly promotes materialism which you have to account for and prove, which the majority of atheists either don't realise or are incapable of doing. And again, I'm just going to be repeating myself if I have to spell out the difference between genuine atheism and only believing in one monotheistic god.

[@CatOnFire]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 "Almost all atheism promotes..." I'm going to stop you right there because you are already wrong. Atheism is the response to a single question. Full stop. Atheists (the people who accept that answer) may promote things, but the answer itself promotes nothing. It is just an answer to a question. You are conflating people and the myriad beliefs that they hold with the single belief of atheism, and you are wrong. Atheism is the default position.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

@@CatOnFire That was convenient for you to "stop" there, wasn't it? You've misunderstood my point. In presupposing a materialist philosophical position (and usually scientism to boot) the majority of atheists inadvertently promote this philosophy in their "answer" without realising it, unless they also try to justify it. Most never do. So it doesn't promote nothing. Atheism isn't the default position. It also requires justification. Which is why most of the popular "New Atheists" write such bad accounts of religious faith and make these mistakes.

[@seheyt]

Siri, what is a false equivalence?

[@janbuyck1]

Exactly : we can prove that 1 + 1 is 2, and not 3 or 4 or, ... But where is the evidence that his god and the other 2999 exist?

[@mrpearson8166]

​@@janbuyck1Where is the evidence that they don't?

[@janbuyck1]

@@mrpearson8166 : where is the evidence that unicorns don’t exist?

[@mrpearson8166]

@@janbuyck1 We still can find fossils of an animal with the characteristics, but until then, we can say it doesn't exist because it's never been been found, neither the animal or it's fossils, and since it supposedly is an animal that lives on the Earth just like any other, not having found one is enough to affirm that it most likely doesn't exist. With gods, specifically with the abrahamic god, things change. He's not just a guy roaming the Earth somewhere, it's a concept, an entity that surpasses our comprehension, but that, according to believers, communicates to humans in different ways. And something with those characteristics can't be proved right or wrong, it's up to you to believe it or not

[@sheershomustafa2631]

​@@mrpearson8166it's their claim the gods or god exist, hence their burden of proof

[@BoshyG]

tell me youre dense without telling me youre dense

[@vejeke]

The problem is not that he doesn't understand what Ricky Gervais is trying to make him understand, the problem is that he doesn't want to understand it.

[@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960]

Ricky gervais is not a gifted philosopher. We understand his argument, its just dogshit

[@tesmith47]

no, the real problem is that he damn well understands, and can not fault the logic,but he is emotionally invested in believing

[@slow_goon73]

Its not supposed to be taken as an argument in support of atheism, as such, it's a rebuttal to the idiots who claim that it's inconceivable that people don't believe in THEIR particular God. You are an atheist WITH RESPECT TO every other God than yourself. You are no worse off for that. Atheists go one step further and accept no theistic claims.

[@jopsbuyco]

Wrong. Atheist means having no god. Having one god doesnt make you an atheist relatively. Its all or nothing. You fell into the same idiot thinking.

[@IbrahimIsmail4889]

I’m not an atheist with respect to other Gpd claims. I’m a theist no matter what. And atheist rejects all god concepts and a theist accepts at least one.

[@CatholicTVC]

But not all gods are equal, and so it's a false equivocation. Zeus is not the same as Shiva. Shiva is not the same as Thor. There are similarities, but also profound differences. The Christian God is not even the same as Allah

[@SirPhysics]

​@@CatholicTVCnobody is saying they're equal, but there is just as little evidence for all of their existences so...

[@noobzerg1990]

@@CatholicTVChow are you so close yet so far

[@yamiyugi9654]

you completely missed the basis of his argument

[@mr.commonsense]

You don't say/s

[@toastmaster914]

What is it?

[@lordavius]

I am also curious. What is the basis of Rick's argument...?

[@mr.commonsense]

there are so many other gods, so what's your justification for believing in this specific one? at the end of the day, you're still as wrong as the people who believed in them@@lordavius

[@lordavius]

@mr.commonsense again, this was not the point of this video. I said myself (2 or 3 times) that this video was NOT a defense of a particular belief or God, but rather the irrationality of dismissing it all because there are many of them. That is the point. My specific justification is the historicity of the figure of Jesus, the best explanation (even for atheistic scholars) for his life journey, the morality that is deeply rooted within us (as Lewis said), the amazing universe we live in, with all the myriad of impossible variables that happened to fit "just right" to permit life, and the very vanguard of science. Just like Werner Heisenberg (father of Quantum Mecahnics) said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Sure, it might not move you, nor be enough to make you consider other possible views. But is more than enough for me, and might be for you too, one day. Who knows? Or I can even change my mind! I am not sure of anything! Have tons of questions myself, but asking them (or not having the full answers) does not mean there might be answers. So, have a great weekend

[@_maximus_prime_]

Bro doing meth instead of math

[@ashpay]

This guy did not understand what Ricky wanted to say.

[@NickHunt]

The argument isn't dumb. You are just not smart enough to understand it.

[@bluckobluc8755]

So basicaly the argument is there arw other religions and their gods thus there is no God ? Well that just proves you need to find the right religion not that God doesn't exist. Atheism makes the claim God doesn't exist, but since you are making a claim against the majority of the world... Burden of proof is on you :)

[@jordannewberry9561]

This isn't even an argument. There's no conclusion. It is just an observation about what they have in common.

[@BigWheel.]

It's really more of a joke tbh.

[@David-McCormick]

It's still an argument. "Argument" is a technical term, not a grand category of solutions. He used a modus tollens method (e.g., "if A, the B...") to rationalize a sarcastic point about religion. He is wrong, and the clip explained why very well.

[@jordannewberry9561]

​@@David-McCormick​ Modus tollens? Where? All Ricky said was: "You don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in just one more". What statement is A and what statement is B?

[@TheBrunarr]

@jordannewberry9561 there's obviously an implicit argument in that statement, why do you think he said it in the first place? Because he just wanted to say a bunch of words for no reason?

[@jordannewberry9561]

@@TheBrunarr I can think of a few different possible reasons. But whatever the reason was, It would be pretty unfair for us to saddle him with an argument he hasn't actually made. Especially if we are to be critical of him for it.

[@mwffu2b]

"The Dumbest Apologist Argument"...There. Fixed it.

[@ker6349]

Your poor rebuttal actually turned me from a catholic into an atheist

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Good, we don't need midwits in the church

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Why are you lying?

[@bloopsignal4480]

No atheist is saying that just because you believe in one more God than them you're basically an atheist. They're saying you feeling weird about them not believing in the same number of gods as you is weird because it's literally one difference. Stop acting victimized.

[@markwildt5728]

That's literally what he said though, so you're wrong. He literally goes on to say, "you're practically as much as an atheist as I am." It was a stupid joke that idiotic Atheists were dumb enough to actually think it was a good argument and ran with it, morphing it into the nonsensical drivel you just espoused. Stop being dishonest.

[@markwildt5728]

@@ojsimpsonismyhero there's nothing illogical about the saying itself. It's no different than them stupid word questions in math class. If you believe in one less God than someone who believes in 1 God, how many Gods do you believe in? The answer would be zero. But the entire premise of the joke is wrong, which is why it works just fine as a joke, but it makes for a horrible Atheistic argument. First of all the entire joke starts with the premise that there's over 3000 gods, and that a Christian only believes in one of them. So it begs the question what makes Christians think their God is the one true God? The problem with that premise is that there are not 3000 gods. There are 4 major religions that believe in actual all powerful gods. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Hindus believe in a the God triune type God not disimilar to the trinitarian Christian God. But it could be argued that monotheistic Christians, Jews and Muslims all Believe in the different forms of the same God. But even if they don't, at most that's 6 gods total, and that's being highly generous to Atheistic argument. The other 2994 gods are things like wind, air, water and nearly 3000 other inanimate objects or abstract ideas that are considered to be "Gods" because people worship them in one way or another. So it would be very sensible for anyone to completely dismiss and disregard the other 2994 gods right off the bat. I think there's good reason to even dismiss the Hindu gods, because even Hindus will tell you they're more of a mythology than anything. So that leaves the 3 other monotheistic gods, which can again be argued are just different iterations of the same God. So we've now come back around full circle to just, you either believe in God, or you don't. To say "I just Believe in one less God than you" is nothing more than a clever way to try and trick people into thinking it's a valid argument. That's like saying to a married man, you're just as much as a bachelor as me, I'm just married to one less person. It makes no logical sense. That's why it's just a stupid joke, and atheists need to stop acting like it's a good argument.

[@Lemonz1989]

@@markwildt5728 There is no way you just dismissed the entire concept of religion to Indians and the religions of some middle eastern people. 🤣 There are literally THOUSANDS of actively worshiped gods in the world, and not just “concepts” and thousands more who were worshiped in the passed and not anymore. Europe alone had dozens of divine pantheons before being turned Christian. And no, many Hindus take their religion very seriously. You just dismissing their religion because you think it’s dumb is also beyond insulting.

[@wizevmkloarm3462]

This argument is a logical fallacy, youve just set up a strawman as a rebuttal.

[@chum27]

I think that you missed the point of what Ricky was saying

[@TurinTuramber]

Missed the point entirely. Theists dismiss every other God claim but their own one. So they shouldn't be surprised or perplexed when people dismiss their God claim. With just a few different points of view, you can dismiss all God claims.

[@michaelmicek]

But as a Catholic, which Brian is, one doesn't totally dismiss other "God claims". Catholics accept the baptisms of other Christians as valid. The God of the Jews is certainly the same God. Islam can be considered a heresy; they worship the God of Abraham as do Catholics, albeit with a rather different conception. And, in general, the spiritual exists. Other spirits may be demons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@michaelmicek You cannot be serious. If you haven't recognised a God claim as a God then you have dismissed the claim, calling them just a demon isn't going to wash. Christians and Jews only pretend to share a God, it's the ship of Theseus fallacy; change enough in a religion and it's really not the same God claim. Catholics don't exactly have a good track record on religious tolerance.

[@michaelmicek]

@@TurinTuramber on the contrary, the solution to the Ship of Theseus problem is that it remains Theseus's ship even after all the parts have been swapped out; there's no switchover point. Historical lack of religious tolerance is a red herring. Yes, I'm serious that the Catholic position is that common ground is genuine truth. Catholics have been making use of this in a religious context since St Paul found the shrine to the unknown god.

[@darrennew8211]

Not theists. Monotheists. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" was referring to Greeks worshiping at Roman temples when they visited Rome.

[@darrennew8211]

@@michaelmicek Those aren't other god claims. That's all the tribal war god of Abraham. How about Thor, or FSM?

[@alexmueller828]

Ok, everybody calm down and take a step back. Ignore the math analogy (which is admittedly not quite the right analogy and just made things more confusing), and hear the gist of the argument, which is this: there is a big difference between 1 and 0 in this context. Just as there there is a big difference in believing there is 1 Loch Ness Monster or 0 Loch Ness Monsters, or believing 1 person is out to kill you VS 0, or believing there is 1 conspiracy to turn the population into giant peacocks or believing there is no such conspiracy, that there is a multiverse (1 multiverse) or no multiverse (0 multiverses). There is a HUGE difference in a theistic and an atheistic worldview. It don't understand how anyone could find it insightful to say, "You (theist) are no different than me (atheist). I just believe in one less God than you." It's just a trick of language to skirt the fact that there is a major difference in worldview between atheist/theist.

[@venerablearcanum]

You should calm down and read the responses. You missed the point.

[@alexmueller828]

@@venerablearcanum Uh, ok? Do you have an actual argument explaining how I missed the point or just your little jab? How would I have written this comment if I hadn't read other people's responses? 😐

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

The point is that just the way Christians can wave away other gods, Atheists can wave away yours and for the same reason.

[@Christian-dd2qm]

Exactly! The funny thing is: the ancient Jews certainly believed in the existence of multiple deities. That is why they are told in the first commandment to have "no other gods before me". That commandment does not make sense, if you don't believe in more gods than the one. You just should not pray to them.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

No they can’t. Gervais’ argument is stupid because he’s making a basic philosophical category error in lazily merging polytheistic and monotheistic belief claims. If you are a Christian monotheist, you do not believe in the principle of polytheism from the outset and so any polytheistic god is rejected in a single belief. Gervais presents the situation as if you’re building a case of probability one by one, judging each minor polytheistic god on its own merit. You don’t have to do that. It’s an entirely different category of belief. Arguments for the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism are in a category separate from e.g. Zeus. It’s a category error and a false equivalence to assume it’s just an arbitrary numbers game of probability between two different types of thing. There are arguments between a much smaller number of monotheistic religions as to which one corresponds most closely to reality, but then that is in itself basically the whole substance of each religion. But you’re looking at far fewer than the number Gervais is giving. And his schtick here is to rely on peoples’ knee-jerk reaction to a large number.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 Evidence for polytheism: Zero Evidence for monotheism: Zero They share that category.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

@@hammalammadingdong6244 Nope. The logical proofs of the maximally-perfect “God” outside the material world of e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam are literally in a different area ontologically than e.g. Zeus, by definition. Arguments like first cause, the ontological arguments, necessity, fine-tuning etc. do not apply to those other gods. Debate those arguments and disagree with them as you wish, but recognise you are talking about a different type of thing.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 - arguments aren’t evidence.

[@kr-666]

This is not an argument, it's more of a response to encourage empathy from the theist to the atheist.

[@os.a.m.a]

If a Muslim doesn't believe in Jesus, that makes him a non-believer in Christianity. If a Christian doesn't believe in Allah, he is a non-believe according to Islam. So it doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, you'll always be wrong according to other religions and you're still going to hell

[@TheHeadlesss]

bruh you really dont know that allah = god in christianty therfore christianty is also correct, and jesus is also in islam as a messanger and beleived as so also correct

[@Mizznimal]

@@TheHeadlesss In islam you must be a muslim to enter heaven regardless and christians are infidels and must be converted or removed from muslim society.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

But if those religions are wrong, you won’t be going to hell. So what’s your point?

[@83Bongo]

His point was, you think 2999 Gods are Made up. He thinks 3000 Gods are made up. Good Job your parents got it right and brought you up in the right one. 🤦‍♂

[@TangledWinston]

It’s hilarious you bring up addition because Christians believe 1+1+1=1 lmao.

[@ungas024]

It's 1x1x1 = 1 , no Christian believes your assumption.

[@grimtapestry5585]

​disgusting. They do, he's talking about the holy trinity you dingus.

[@hannanah8036]

​@@ungas024You're only allowed to worship 1 God, God says this. But than God also says to worship his son and the holy spirit. So you're only allowed to worship one god, but you worship 3

[@jacksonfoley9823]

@@hannanah8036not exactly we believe in that the father, son and the holy sprit are one being and we call that the holy trinity so no we only worship one god, hopefully this helps clear up some confusion have a great day

[@deancrosiar6458]

​@@jacksonfoley9823three entities aren't one being. It's a little nonsensical isn't it.

[@Flylikea]

Well, one argument was dumb

[@Gerundier]

Ok Atheists: 1 Christians: 0

[@amandadewet4022]

You are listening to a clump of cells made by nothing. What is truth, good or evil at this level anyhow?

[@theymockedjesusalso]

Atheists going to hell they are unlimited negative score.

[@chimp09]

How can somebody miss the point ricky was making so much?

[@craigcunningham8961]

Definitely missing the point, the point is you know what it's to not believe in irrefutable *insert religious text here* evidence

[@RedRebel8]

Man that's a dumb answer.

[@GalapagosPete]

I wasn’t aware that there was any sort of controversy about whether 1+1 = 2, much less whether math exists at all. Or whether it works, or is very demonstrably useful in many ways. Perhaps you should consider using another analogy, because this one completely fails on every level.

[@addledhead]

Controversy or the lack thereof has no bearing on the innate truth behind the statement.

[@GalapagosPete]

@@addledhead It does if you’re using it as an analogy.

[@asparkdeity8717]

1 + 1 = 2 has been proven from base axioms, there is no controversy about that However, a complete and consistent math system cannot exist by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

[@addledhead]

@@GalapagosPete it actually doesn't at all, that is what is meant by "innate" truth. Truth doesn't become less true just because it doesn't reinforce your worldview.

[@GalapagosPete]

@@addledhead And yet, it’s still a stupid analogy.

[@reinerjung1613]

It is ok that you did not get the joke, but why make a video about it?

[@trinut3760]

So what is his argument? Only words that came out of his mouth work and all he said was an observation. Anyone can clip what a person says and start putting words in their mouth. This is manipulative and dishonest.

[@twix_142]

So the Bible? I'm not saying that the math guy makes sense.

[@trinut3760]

@@twix_142 Please explain how "the bible" is somehow a reply to what I said?

[@twix_142]

@@trinut3760 all the Bible is am observation, that the people who wrote it could have been just telling a lie. Do manipulative and dishonest

[@srenbro916]

you dont get it, do you?

[@davidgroekathofer8240]

It's not about logic (this time). It's about feelings. The feeling an atheist has towards your god might be similar to the feeling you have towards other gods. You are not a bad person because you do not believe in Vishnu and he is not a bad person because he does not believe in (the Christian) god.

[@jesuslopez-fe7dv]

💯% true!

[@FOLIPE]

It's about the burden on the one who believes to prove his god is real.

[@mallvalim]

But your beliefs are not maths, right?

[@CatholicTVC]

They're logical. Have you ever read Aristotle or Aquinas?

[@rickfromhell]

Atheists are wrong, because I'm bad at math.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

What! How did you get that from what Brian said?

[@rickfromhell]

@@Jimmy-iy9pl because he rattled off a bunch of numbers, and then decided it added up to whatever he said.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

@@rickfromhell That's...not what he did?

[@rickfromhell]

@@Jimmy-iy9pl Yes it is

[@PlopDeggy]

@@Jimmy-iy9plit totally is

[@Jack13Ripper]

Dude, you just missed the entire point...

[@adam.summerfield]

No he didn't, he debunked Gervais' point.

[@dennissvensson6051]

This counter argument goes completely over my head.

[@justacryptid4687]

It's because it doesn't make sense

[@TheBrunarr]

@justacryptid4687 it makes perfect sense. The point is that the number of possible answers doesn't affect whether there is a correct answer or not. That's informally fallacious. So, Brian gives a more clear example to show the fallacious reasoning.

[@justacryptid4687]

@@TheBrunarr but 1+1=2 is an easily observable fact. Christianity has the same lack of evidence for God as any religion, if you personally have evidence please explain it to me

[@g_g...]

​@@justacryptid4687 don't even ask him. Or are you actually expecting him to come up with real evidence of God?

[@justacryptid4687]

@@g_g... just trying to argue in good faith and bring up any potential evidence first

[@jonescrusher1]

You're not 'practically an atheist', you're an atheist in regards to a certain god. It's a perfectly sound argument, you've failed to counter it.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

This is partly a semantic issue, partly an epistemological issue. If you're defining atheist in its traditional sense then, no, calling a theist an atheist in no sense works. Atheism is just the denial that any god exists. Even if it were true, nothing of interest would follow. It would amount to nothing because that doesn't undermine theism as an ontological claim nor would it undermine the rationality of theistic belief as it pertains to the particular variety under discussion. It's just empty rhetoric.

[@jonescrusher1]

@@Jimmy-iy9pl fine, if you expect me to accept your narrow definition of atheism. As it happens this point isn’t necessary to undermine your ontological claims, in fact as an atheist I’m not required to make any attempt to undermine or disprove your claims. The theist makes the claim, the burden is on them to substantiate it.

[@thatdude_93]

it's also a complete misunderstanding of what the term 'God' signifies. 'God' is not 'a god'. He's just God.

[@alexwtf80]

that statement means absolutely nothing

[@mr.commonsense]

​@@alexwtf80everything has meaning, even opinion. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean we will make fun of you for that

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

The word " god" is an imaginary concept, imagined by humans. No people = No imagined "gods".

[@almcdermid9669]

Every believer in every other god believes this, but here's the deal, definitions are not reality; definitions are how we describe things.

[@TheBrunarr]

​@@mr.commonsenseI might make fun of him

[@rikusauske]

The mental gymnastics on this guy I tell ya

[@SnoozeMagoo]

Math can be proven. Big god boys can’t. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

No, not necessarily. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against the existence of numbers and other mathematical objects. Fictionalism is a serious position in the philosophy of mathematics.

[@ComposedBySam]

​@@Jimmy-iy9plin philosophy there is something called a formal system and all the axioms concerning it. The assertion 1+1=2 can be syntactically proved using axioms within this system. Mathematical assertions don't need to be "real" or "non-fictitious" to be true within this formal system. Eg. exp(-i*pi)=-1 The formal system of mathematics is a set of axioms devised to help us quantify, predict and understand matters in the real world. For eg. Physics

[@Tom-zc9gs]

@@ComposedBySam Axioms are the mathematical equivalent of dogmas. Basically we say something's true because it's self-evident. It proves itself by simply being... true? In essence we say that there are certain things we need to take for granted in order to understand everything else. A religious dogma is, in practice, the exact same thing. If you try to disprove a religious dogma then try to elaborate on the "Why?" question of existence and being, any human philosophical system falls apart. Enter relativism, that is, philosophical entropy, where no system of morals, ethics or values can be considered objective, foundational and thus "true". The logical consequence is, if nothing's objectively true, any truth could potentially deny itself, eventually leading to the collapse of rational thought. If we say relativism is a reasonable position, even that relativism is true, the ultimate logical conclusion is paradox, contradiction, self-denial, and again collapse of rational thought and discourse. Belief is rational without hard scientific evidence simply because it comes prior to science itself. It is the very foundation of human being, perception, consciousness, though and ultimately rational discovery. Denying belief means denying the foundations of reality and the means for which we can say something is or isn't true, is or isn't existing.

[@ComposedBySam]

@@Tom-zc9gs while it’s true that we cannot have a formal system which proves its own axioms, the axioms are not ‘beliefs’ but rather self evident truths that can be verified both by empirical data and in one’s own imagination. We fail to perceive of a scenario where the axiom is “wrong”. For example if a,b,c are real numbers, then if a>b and b>c then it is implied that a>c. That can be proved by invoking the axiom that the binary relation ‘>’ is transitive in nature. Now let us fundamentally look at why we accept such an axiom. Basically the set of real numbers is an ordered set which is a fancy way of saying that real numbers can be arranged in a number line. So the fact that if a point B lies on the right of another point A, and some other point C lies at the right of the point B, then by mere imagination, it must be that the point C lies right of point A. Trying to imagine otherwise is not possible as that would defy the very way how space is perceived. So it is not a belief but a rational necessity. On the other hand, existence of religious dogma is neither a rationally necessary one nor is it a verifiable one. Hence it cannot be considered an axiom even if we try to construct a formal system out of theological dogmas.

[@ComposedBySam]

@@Tom-zc9gs also I found a small but a very essential flaw in your argument regarding moral relativism. If no system of morals can be true then that implies that any “moral” truth can deny itself. Not all truths are moral in nature. And hence we can still have truths which do not fall under your moral system, which cannot deny themselves. Basically the thing is that, mathematical systems can be standardised because mathematical truths depends solely on the object which is subject to measurement/evaluation. Whereas when it comes to moral systems, they cannot be standardised because they stem from subjective feelings and not from the object of discussion. Now since, not all subjects experiencing the object experience the same feeling, we cannot have a moral system which is true for all subjects and neither can we have a moral system which is objective in nature because of the very nature of morality. Only an individual can define moral systems for themselves which will only hold true for themselves and even then, there is no guarantee that a moral system can be defined in a way as to remain consistent within its own set of rules because feelings are under no obligation to be rationally consistent unlike mathematical observation.

[@rentiap]

There is no one dumber than one who believes fiction written in a book of fables is real.

[@bluckobluc8755]

So athestic satanists ?

[@rentiap]

@@bluckobluc8755 Do you comprehend that an atheist is simply one who is not convinced a god exists. And that the lack of belief that Satan exists goes along with it?

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

That is a dumb argument.

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

From the atheist? I agree.

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

@reverendcoffinsotherson5807 Yes, from the atheist. I was surprised Brian spent time on it.

[@dutchboyslim5951]

Yeah, Ricky is always pretty mistaken, alright

[@bubblegodanimation4915]

Not really. Gods are not equations. The point he was getting at was that someone can be unconvined of any god for the same reasons you become unconvinced of all the others.@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807

[@mr.commonsense]

​@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807if you ever talked to an atheist, you would disagree

[@SaintPabloEnjoyer]

Such a serious matter that jesus himself started arguing💀

[@christopherlarsen7788]

"You shall not have other gods before me." - The First Commandment Russell Brand points out that one thing we can derive from the First Commandment is that humans are a worshipping creature. A second thing was can derive from this commandment is that God recognizes humans worship other gods - wealth, fame, power, lust, greed, envy, revenge. God commands that we worship him above all others. Ricky Gervais worships. How can I be certain? Because he is human. And when he stops worshiping, he is no longer human. It's just that Gervais worships the other gods...all 2,999 of them, it seems.

[@T_J_]

You are utterly confused. I don't worship anything, yet by every meaningful measure I am human. And Gervais doesn't believe in any gods, yet you've claimed he worships "all 2,999" gods. Your brain doesn't work properly. Seek help.

[@Fiona2254]

Nah he worships himself. And although he’s occasionally funny he’s also, as a result of his self worship, an @$$.

[@almcdermid9669]

"You shall have no other gods" literally means no other gods; it's not a metaphor for things other than a god. The amazing thing about Christians is how clueless they are regarding the history of their own religion.

[@almcdermid9669]

And not all humans worship; that's simply stupid.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

@@almcdermid9669 - But thank God (pun intended) we have you to interpret our reality for us. Whew! I thought we were all alone for a second there. No, go on. Tell us all about what YOU think. (Self worship much?)

[@FumetsuGolf]

When the point goes over your head.

[@WiseWeeabo]

leave it up to a religious fanatic to create the most far-fetched excuse possible to avoid facing reality

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Avoid facing what? A bad argument?

[@WiseWeeabo]

oh yeah because christianity is as much a proven fact as 1+1=2? this is why no one takes you people seriously

[@WiseWeeabo]

I'll take a bad argument over a lie any day of the week

[@bluckobluc8755]

​@@WiseWeeaboAtheism is just as much of a claim as any other belief system. If you claim there is no God you have the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim against the majority of the world thus you prove all of us wrong.

[@WiseWeeabo]

​@@bluckobluc8755 I'm not sure you have to claim that, I think a simple LACK of belief is all you need. I can sit all day and make up new imaginary monsters, while I don't have proof that they don't exist I also simply don't believe in them in the same way I don't believe in Thor or Odin or Shiva or Vishnu et.c. and I would imagine you also don't believe in those 4 gods, even though you don't carry around proof that they don't exist?

[@Kingkhan-qk2vk]

Wow i didn't know Jesus was making yt shorts

[@OrginalRaxor]

Do people really buy this??? 1+1 = 2 therefore God??? Cause this is basicly what he said. Thats just dumb.

[@jordannewberry9561]

You're the first person here to say "1+1 = 2 therefore God".

[@OrginalRaxor]

@@jordannewberry9561 He basicly said.. 1+1 is not = 3.... Meaning all other Gods. But 1+1 = 2 therefore God. That was the entire argument.

[@gaithouri]

you messed this up completely .. like all believers do

[@grapes008]

Ok, fantastic. Now prove beyond reasonable doubt that even a single good exists. This is something we can do with 1+1. Apply the scientific method to act religion and it falls apart. That's why it's a fairy tale.

[@CatholicTVC]

1+1=2 is not a scientific claim.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

The scientific method observes, tests and measures the material world. God isn’t in the material world. Hope this helps.

[@grapes008]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 so it's imaginary then. Completely useless in any way, shape or form

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

@@grapes008Nope.

[@grapes008]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 as long as you understand that it's only an imaginary friend it's whatever.

[@achocolatebiscuit5087]

Math, unlike thesism, can be calculated, predicted, analyzed, and seen. 1+1 is 2 because calculating means 2. Math isn't some subjective feeling. The math analogy doesn't hold water because math doesn't operate like thesism at all. Also, he doesn't think you're an atheist. He argues why a person chooses to believe in one God but not another? Both types of God's both are unfalseable. Why not believe in all of them? Why should I believe in God but not the other?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Math can be demonstrated logically. So can the necessity for a supreme being and it is on such ground that it should be debated, not the kind of sophistry that Gervais demonstrates in this video. It might also interest you to know that one of Renee Descartes' fundamental premises for his new "scientific" approach to rational inquiry (he's credited as one of the founding fathers of modern science) was rational skepticism which posited that it's impossible to know anything with certainty, including mathematical logic because you will eventually have to rely on some axiom that cannot be proven (like the laws of logic are valid). If you dismiss the axioms that lead to the logical proofs for God's existence, then someone can easily turn around and do the same to mathematical logic. So if you do that with God, then you also jeopardize other rational concepts that you probably don't want to throw away.

[@jordannewberry9561]

​@@BrianHoldsworthObviously, we wouldn't want to just accept all possible axioms. That would be a mess. So how would you suggest we make decisions when it comes to accepting an axiom or not.

[@Vincenzo-wn1or]

And The Three equals The One ... 😉

[@zgeorgem]

If you want to know how am atheist feels, just ask yourself how do I feel about 2999 gods out there. That was his point

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Fine, but that's not an argument. When asked to give a reason, he replies with an explanation about his feelings? That's not rational at all. Further, it presupposes evidence for all "gods" is the same, which it is not, and it dismisses that all religions have one belief in common, which is the existence of a divine nature. The number of ways of expressing that is irrelevant.

[@venerablearcanum]

@@BrianHoldsworth What do you mean, "when asked to give a reason"? The question isn't included in the clip. This is why you don't get it. You think it is a response to something it isn't a response to. It is in response to the demand often placed on the atheist to prove a negative. "How do you KNOW my particular god doesn't exist!? You can't possibly be an atheist because you haven't proved my god doesn't exist!" That's the challenge he is responding to. And the lack of evidence for gods isn't a presupposition, it's a position the atheist takes. It isn't a _positive_ claim that requires defending. It is a rejection of one that requires defending but has not enjoyed any. His point is that you take that very same position for all those other gods but not your own, which you think is justified. However, all those other believers whose beliefs you feel are unjustified feel the same way about _your_ belief. You are the Hindu's atheist, for example (as well as the Buddhist's, the Zoroastrian's, etc.). If they all came at you with the charge to disprove their gods one by one or convert, you would be justified in responding that they are the ones making a positive claim and, ergo, they need to prove that their gods exist or you are under no obligation to believe in them. Atheism just demands the same of you. Prove it or I have no reason for believing it. Atheists demand the same burden of proof for your god that you would rightly demand for others' gods.

[@andrewjackson8244]

Another way to say this is, "I'm not married to 3.5 billion women and your not married to 3.5 billion women. I just go one woman farther so your just as much of a bachelor as I am."

[@TurinTuramber]

Misses the entire point. For example a Muslim absolutely rejects Hinduism. You ignore this nuance in your analogy.

[@andrewjackson8244]

@@TurinTuramber no that is exactly what my analogy is saying. Christianity rejects all other religions, Islam rejects all other religions, Judaism rejects all other religions. Every religion says the others are wrong and this guy is using that to say, "Well your all an atheist in regards to these other gods I just go one god farther" The point of my analogy is to point out the fallacy of that argument. All it takes to not be an atheist is to believe in a god, and Christians do believe in God, which means they are not atheists in any respect. Just like how all it takes to not be a bachelor is to marry one single person. It doesn't matter how many people your not married to, all you need is the one to no longer be qualified as a bachelor.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@andrewjackson8244 I get that they will never be considered an atheist. The point I think isn't about the label of Atheist or not, it's about the common ground between an atheist and a theist, in regard to 99.9% of God claims they are in absolute agreement. Two theists of different beliefs would dismiss the same number of different God claims as nonsense as an atheist would.

[@andrewjackson8244]

@@TurinTuramber have you seen the original video? His whole argument is dismissing religion entirely based off of them being essentially atheists and disregards their beliefs entirely. His video is 100% about the label of atheism. In this video its hard to pick that out but it is evident in the original As for your commonality view, yes I see what your saying, and that 1% difference is really important and cant be dismissed. You cant just assume that because they all disagree then they are all wrong. We have to ask what is it they disagree on, why do they disagree, and is there evidence to support the views on either side. Now as a Christian I am of the mindset that there is great evidence for Christianity, but I am dilligent enough to view other worldviews for what they claim and analyze the evidence for the ones I am researching

[@TurinTuramber]

@@andrewjackson8244 You believe Jesus was actually God essentially based on a book of claims of evidence. Muslims reject Jesus as God and actually make good arguments to support this. They believe Jesus never claimed to be God and any part of the Bible that endorses this is man made fiction. You hold the very same verses to be true and reject their own holy book as a work of man made fiction. It's fascinating to watch as an atheist spectator. To assume a God claim as true you must deny all other God claims as superstitious fiction. You are literally professing that humans can and really do fabricate God claims without ever needing irrefutable evidence....but my God claim which is different because reasons. Any thinking person with any objectivity should be thinking "hold on a minute, I can see these falsehoods everywhere; could I have I fallen into a similar falsehood?"

[@Si_nengatcha]

Am i the only one who confused?

[@EasternRomeOrthodoxy]

🇷🇺☦🤝✝️Problem is, Brian, that you guys don't teach the brothers and sisters the correct Orthodox/Catholic views on the trinity, and leaving the debates to ignorant Protestant heretics, who constantly embarrass us, getting annihilated by Muslims, every single time, saying things like "parts of the Bible are fables"...Good Lord🤦Brian, it's time you start getting in the ring and start debating.

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

Jimmy Akin is especially good at apologetics

[@kresimirpleic]

​​@@diannalaubenberg7532Yet Jimmy Akin is nowhere to be seen. We need these heavyweights in the arenas, as Lionboy implied. Apologetics among Christians is good. Apologetics on the front lines is better.

[@EasternRomeOrthodoxy]

@@diannalaubenberg7532 Cool, I will check him out, sis, thanks👍The best Muslim debater, who is so knowledgeable about our church fathers (unfortunately more than most Christians🤦) is Jake the Muslim Metaphysician, and the only time he couldn't win a debate was against our Orthodox Shahada guys. But I can do much better without getting into heavy philosophical mental gymnastics, and convey the doctrines to every layman in a simple and coherent manner. In fact, I will make a channel go to speakers corner and convey our message for the sake of God, in Jesus name. I will be the Mohammad Hijab of Christians🤺☦🇷🇺

[@outoforbit-]

No Brian should not get in the ring, there are too many there already and tbh I doubt if it pleases God. Brian is very good at what he does, he doesn't over complicate, besides heavy philosophical debates gives me a headache and they are ultimately boring if they are trying to prove God's existence.

[@EasternRomeOrthodoxy]

@@kresimirpleic That's exactly right. The number of times I have seen a traditional Catholic or an Orthodox (as I) in a debate is like 1.5 or so. The rest are all Protestant pagans who dare speaking in our name as if they are Christians. As if they ever read our Church Fathers. I love seeing them exposed, but the problem is that the world sees it as a representation of Christianity, embarrassing us. I always tell the Muslims to call them Protestants not Christians

[@kulathungasai967]

Dude math is fact but god is not.

[@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960]

Thats the whole point. HOW DO YOU GUYS NOT GET THIS I AM ABOUT TO LOSE IT WITH YOU PEOPLE 😂😂😂😂 If we apply the same standards to Maths with which Ricky is trying to disprove Theism, then we would have to deny Maths. Since Maths is true, this must mean Rickys methodology is wrong

[@mr.commonsense]

Wow, this argument in of itself was stupid. Let's get this out of the way, We know that 1+1 is 2, because if we put rocks together, there are 2 rocks. If we line up 7 rocks and remove 5, we won't say there are now 3 rocks, because it's clearly visible that there are 2 rocks. It's like saying that a cut down tree becomes a stump (which makes sense), but you're pretending as if removing a single leaf makes it a stump. The difference is that no one made math that was, because it's simply logic of "If I eat the cake, there will be no more cake", not that "if I eat the cake, then I shall become the cake on the table I ate it from" If youre really sure that this is the "dumbest" atheist argument, then how come atheists still exist? I mean, all we ask is literally one single thing, meanwhile there are so many religions, with so many branches, with to many ideas, with so many ideologies. What's so hard to simply prove that your personal god is real, or any in that matter? Reply when you feel like it

[@MegaMackproductions]

I mean What would be required to show God exists? He's already become man, was crucified. There's been a myriad of eucharistic miracles,ultiple aspirations of our Lady that have just about all come true... at the end of the day there's nothing to satisfy you because you don't want to be satisfied. I think atheists have a very simplistic and childish view of God. He's supposed to grant all your wishes and come down and speak to you directly all the time. Most of you refer to him as the "magic sky daddy" or the "wizard in the sky". I mean it's just chikdish. And that's simply not how God works. God's not a genie and he's not always gonna chase after you. We know that God exists because of the aforementioned works of his. We know he exists because logically he can be the ONLY one to exist.

[@mr.commonsense]

@@MegaMackproductions okay, you say he was a man and has been crucified, but when I say I am jesus, god himself, then no one believes me. If you don't believe I am god, then why should I even believe in some guy who's not real and pretends to be me. I was there 2000 years ago, yet no one believes me

[@MegaMackproductions]

@mr.commonsense seems incoherent. If Yoj proclaimed yourself Gregor mendel would you be the father of genetics? If you said you were Julius Caesar would that make you the first emperor of Rome? Your argument makes no sense.

[@mr.commonsense]

@@MegaMackproductions now that's what I wanted to hear, the "your argument makes no sense". I used that logic, by copying you. I literally copied your logic, now please explain your logic of how I specifically am wrong and not you at all, because you believe or whatever your excuse is now

[@MegaMackproductions]

@mr.commonsense how? You cant say youre God because youre not God. I mean you don't have a following of men who are willing to die saying you're God. if we killed you through crucifixion you wouldn't resurrect.. I mean You don't have however many years moving through the old testaments of Various prophets proclaiming your arrival and the other various prophecies regarding Jesus. You can't claim to be God, because you're not God. Jesus was and is God.

[@lepostedejordan]

Do you not see the glaring problem with your argument just screaming out at you?

[@newglof9558]

Reminder that "which god" and variations of it (such as 'you don't believe in 2,999 gods') is not, has never been, and will never be an argument because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God in an Abrahamic context, specifically God as understood in classical theism. This is, by and large, the dumbest atheist argument. Any atheist making this argument should be immediately dismissed by the theist as a completely unserious interlocutor.

[@velkyn1]

ROFL. Funny how these christians have to try to pretnd their god is something different so the arguments against this god suposedly fail. Alas, their god is that silly character in the bible, and it fails too. It isn't some vague nonsense like they have tried to claim.

[@outoforbit-]

​@@velkyn1Christians believe in God, not a god.

[@velkyn1]

@@outoforbit- your god is no different than the many othesr humans have invented. Just as ignorant, as petty, and as vicious as any god from the bronze/iron ages.

[@thedude0000]

@@velkyn1 they do use special pleading to place their god on a pedestal above the thousands of other god claims in history.

[@thedude0000]

@@outoforbit- until you can put forth good evidence to demonstrate otherwise.....your god claim is no more valid than any other god claim.

[@1skyofrog]

How Fe is created destroys the Abrahamic origin stories.

[@Javier-il1xi]

Atheism like the crap we see from TV personalities is so early 2000's.

[@mr.commonsense]

Thank god I'm atheist then

[@aidanya1336]

I dunno, atheism just like those TV personalities are still around. And there are more of us now than there were back than.

[@Klongu_Da_Bongu]

@@aidanya1336 Yeah, at R/atheism XD

[@AverageLobotomyFan]

​@@mr.commonsenseplease tell me this was intentional 💀💀💀

[@mr.commonsense]

@@AverageLobotomyFan please tell me you understand what jokes are

[@ICY-HURR]

It’s a dumb argument the way you put it but that’s not the interpretation he’s trying to achieve. He means why would you believe in your god but refuse any others with similar interpretations. Think about it, math is solid, gods are not. You’re comparing religions BELIEFS as if they actually hold any water.

[@keithlightminder3005]

Early Christian’s we’re seen by many Roman’s as atheists.

[@thorobreu]

Yes so it really just comes down to the evidence for and against the Christian God. The "one less god" argument doesn't take us one way or the other

[@jaybartgis5148]

I'm confused. But ok, have a good day

[@Contra.Mundum.]

To put it in basic terms: Some have used the 'many gods' analogy as a reason to be atheist. They say that because, say, Christians reject thousands of other gods the atheist position isn't all that extraordinary as they just 'go one god further' and deny the existence of all gods. This is expressed another way: "The fact that 2999 gods do not exist means that no gods exist." The rebuttal demonstrates the absurdity of this claim by using an analogy based on maths. For instance, we know 1+1=2, and the fact that 1+1 does not equal 3,or 4,or 5 and so forth does not disprove the existence of the correct answer (namely 2). This is not trying to prove that God definitely exists because 1+1=2 is true, but that to simply deny every deity altogether is quite a stretch. Edit: It's a very clever argument from Gervais, but it is quite bankrupt under scrutiny. The reason why Christians even reject the existence of so many gods is because of the fact that we deem God to be worthy of worship. God is worthy of worship if he possesses all the divine attributes (he must be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc.) and if he lacked any one attribute then he wouldn't be qualified for the title of 'God'. Therefore, we can immediately rule out every deity that does not possess the divine attributes: we can rule out Thor as God because, well, he's powerful but not all-powerful. Same with Odin, or Zeus and so forth. These are all unworthy of worship as they all have some sort of flaw (a lack of something). If atheists want to define God differently, then that's fine, but for most people God is understood in the Classical sense (possessing the divine attributes), and this would also be the God Gervais rejects. Edit note: Clarified the final sentence.

[@mitchiegotmovesy7635]

Christian here: bad counterarguement

[@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536]

This guy's counter argument: I am right because I am right. Here let me show you 1+1=2 therefore I am right. Most intelligent argument I've ever heard.

[@blah914]

nah. i dont believe in magic.

[@muchotexto4248]

"You chose one god amongst thousands and denied the rest of them all. How do you know if you've chosen correctly?" - WELL HOW ABOUT WE BELIEVE IN NOONE EVER THEN CARL

[@bob_b9349]

I dont really like to take sides in this debate but this atheist arguing point is better than any arguing point i’ve seen a Christian come up with. The argument is concise and straight to the point. And it looked like the Christian or whatever he was was shocked

[@pikagiuppy93]

this guy's argument is just "i'm right, you're wrong, cry about it"

[@SHARAraTH]

Well... your analogy could work for flat earthers...

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I'm seeing a lot of the same bad responses to this. The point of bringing math in as an analogy is because we all agree that in math, there is a right answer. But, Gervais' hyper skeptical logic can be used to dismiss anything, including math. His logic is, because there can be 2999 wrong answers to a question, we can assume there is no right answer. That's an absurd non sequitur. At no point did I argue that evidence for God is the same as evidence for simple mathematical sums.

[@venerablearcanum]

That's not "his logic" here at all. You don't even know what it is in response to. You can't understand it because you are conflating it with an argument against the existence of god. It isn't. It's an argument about the standards of evidence used to accept or reject a god concept. The point is that you, as a Christian, reject all other god concepts because they are superstitious nonsense. That same standard of evidence is used by atheists to reject all those same gods, plus the one you don't have the guts to think critically about. To Hindus, you are the atheist and they are the believer. You think they don't have reasons for their belief that are just as "good" as (or even identical to) yours? I assure you they do. And that's the point.

[@truthmatters6719]

It is in fact a great answer, dont listen to the bots mate keep going💪

[@MuttonChops24]

Except math is proven and god is not proven

[@Lericah4902]

It's like watching college me learning recursion.

[@al-montherbakkoush9495]

1+1=2 is a fact The gods aren’t proven Here is why your analogy doesn’t work

[@thomascomptoniv6076]

Well, if you bothered researching the origin of the word, you'd know that Greeks called Christians atheists for not believing in their pantheon. So you are in fact an atheist to any one individual claim of a god.

[@islandurth]

1+1=2 is deductively true. This is a bad comparison.

[@romishmajidov1205]

What is this guy smoking?

[@birch98]

Candidate for worst analogy ever right here

[@timothykeith1367]

It's like a divorced person saying "I now have one less spouse" . It's not an argument for anything.

[@tica03011985]

Theists usually believe in their god because they have faith which is to say they believe in it and don't have any evidence or good reason. That is why you can show them they don't believe in thousands of other gods because there is no reason why they would believe in the one they do. And for 1+1 or other mathematical questions, there are proofs for why things are the way they are which is the complete opposite of believing in magical creatures of one sort or another.

[@rodbass3238]

Caption should read "The dumbest and weakest counter argument ever"

[@RaxxedOut43]

We are all bachelors, im just married to one less person than you🤓

[@niconestra]

In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something?

[@TheBrunarr]

I've come up with this example myself years ago. Cool to see someone else has too

[@waltzguy14151]

Way to miss the point. The point is that it's as easy for us to reject the nonsensical Christian god as it is for you Christians to reject the other 2999. You think this makes sense - it just doesn't. Atheists know it's all nonsense because none of it makes sense in the first place. Grow up.

[@neverstopliving1003]

The point of the argument to make theists realize that they also don’t believe in some gods. It is meant to humanize the atheistic position by showing that they hold a similar position themselves, just about a different god.

[@stevied667iswin]

This is possibly the worst counter argument I have heard for anything.......ever.

[@raymondspogo]

He was defending atheism using the argument that you choose Gods to deny. He wasn't saying that you need to not believe in one more god. He was saying that disbelief doesn't need to be defended as everyone disbelieves a god.

[@SpaceStickwithSpaceTick]

By that logic I can confidently say that blue is objectively the best color.

[@jesuslopez-fe7dv]

I watched that on the late night show with Steven Colbert; he never said that Steven was sn atheist too because he didn't believe in 2999 other Gods.

[@rock801]

Brian does not understand math....and he unnecessarily defends himself.

[@mtps9949]

To reframe his argument, he ment believing in something is better than believing in nothing. As same as 0-nothing, 1-something. I hv something to eat vs I hv nothing to eat I hv someone to love vs I hv no one in my life.

[@SquatterMoccasin]

He didn’t miss the point, Ricky’s argument is a non sequitur, and this is a perfect demonstration as to why, what’s the confusion?