Stephen Colbert vs Ricky Gervais on religion

[James Monroe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZOwNK6n9U

The two comedic giants clash on stage when Stephen, a devout Roman Catholic, brought up religion to one of the most prominent atheists in the entertainment industry. With a intellectual stimulating subject matter on national late night tv taking place I wonder who you think did better with their reasoning?

Gervais makes a valid point about the illogic of belief systems that are all preaching to the same choir, to the same fears as the other beliefs. What I like about Gervais argument is the science vs religion arguments sway in the former side, because if you burned down all the textbooks they'll have to restart the process and rewrite the rules. With science we can start from scratch and figure our way through the scientific method, make an educational hypothesis, then test the accuracy, boom it's true. The Big Bang theory, gravity, evolution, global warming, any scientific fact would be known to the public if they were discover today by our top scientists.

[LabourJersey]

I think you might have a low bar for "intellectually stimulating conversations" if this makes the list.

I don't really see the point of the critique that religions "preach to the same choir." Humans are innately inquisitive beings, and they seek to understand themselves and the world around them. But they also inquire about things that are beyond the threshold of the observable--i.e., why are we the way we are? why is the world the way it is and not something else? Religions are "similar" in providing answers to those questions because those questions are nearly universal. The fact that they seek to find the same truths and provide explanations of the same fears is a sign of strength, not a weakness.

[James Monroe]

I don't really see the point of the critique that religions "preach to the same choir." Humans are innately inquisitive beings, and they seek to understand themselves and the world around them. But they also inquire about things that are beyond the threshold of the observable--i.e., why are we the way we are? why is the world the way it is and not something else? Religions are "similar" in providing answers to those questions because those questions are nearly universal. The fact that they seek to find the same truths and provide explanations of the same fears is a sign of strength, not a weakness.

Well, with religion you see all of the major faiths providing a strict dogma that is not rooted in factual info about the universe. All of the faiths deny the scientific consensus about how life begins. You would see talk about dinosaurs that would make the leaders of the faiths give a reasonable talk on the universe, instead they try to make up the fact humans co-exist with dinosaurs, or that the Earth is young in age at 4,000 years old. To me that is not a strength of any curiosity but a deny in reality and education. Really, we would not need religion if it came to all the same consensus on a singular God or Goddess, as we see there are hundreds of Gods in the world. Think about how people in the ancient world thought about Zeus, alright. That was the official religion of the day. In those times it made sense for all groups of people to believe in the fantastical creation of the universe, as actual science was denied by the church of the day, before the Enlightenment. When we have all the data behind us many choose to give basic explanation to divinity to literally anything, even if they'll thank a Deity for making a sandwich. Most telling of all the religions is the need for war over regions just to spread the Faith. The Christian Dark Ages were a testament to the brutality of organized faith in the earlier years, or the ongoing fights between Christians and Muslims in the last 20 years.  When it said and done does this benefit humanity in any tangible manner?

As Steven Weinberg, said it takes good people to do harm, and that is due to religion.