yeah, was brilliant that bit.

Rakinjo2 It made me reach orgasm.

yes it was brilliant. but i was thinking would the religious people would get a counter logic to this also . and i think they will. they will say "yes right. thats why we try to save our holy books , because no simple man can write them on its own, only the messenger of god can write that "

If you believe "The messenger of God" wrote the bible, you're probably Muslim and not Christian. :P In Christianity it's a recognized fact that the book is not holy on it's own, and that the first passages of the new testament were written at least half a century after the death of Jesus. Obviously a lot of modern Christians don't know any of this, because most modern Christians don't actually give enough of a shit about their supposed "Faith" to study it, yet atheists who do, and call it out on it's bullshit, are assholes. Because logic, I suppose. Pointless online credentials that no one's going to believe anyway: I study Religious Science. (As in, the science of how religions work, and not.. Creationism, or whatever).

yeah except for some holy books, that have scientific truths. I mean I don't know too much about the Quran but it contains the first written statement that the universe if forever expanding. I think that is recurring but started in the Quran.

haha didnt notice that one

😂😂😂😂

well they are works of fiction

@@SwayneIII what?

@@SwayneIII Gah no stop I'm a Christian myself and I'm speaking from experience when I say arguing about religion online isn't gonna get anyone anywhere. It's just not worth it.

I'd love to see an hour long debate between these two on religion. This was civil, humorous and respectful of the other person's opinions.

Well he does have a UCL degree in philosophy

I think also because he got famous when he was like 39? Maybe even older. So he truly knows what it's like to be a normal guy

I'm an atheist but I do like Stephen's point that he has a strong desire to direct his gratitude towards something. I think that explains a lot about religion and why every civilisation and every country throughout history has had a religion to follow.

Any good comedian has to be ridiculously smart. It's not a profession for those with mediocre IQs.

Absolutely - as is the point about if we lost all books in 1000 years all science books would be exactly the same yet all religious texts would be completely and totally different. Maybe similar stories (a chosen one, virgin birth, etc) since those stories exist in hundreds of different religions, almost all of which were before christianity.

The fact is he acts like he’s a bit daft but you won’t find many people more intelligent than he is. Class act of a bloke

​@@ross-carlson yup. If any religion was the truth from their all powerful deity, it would have existed since...well, before humanity. The Bible, or the belief in the Christian God, would have existed always. Like, if the Christian God is real, and there's no other gods or anything and people need God's word to get into their fantasy happy place, we'd have known since day 1. But we haven't. The Bible was created by the Roman empire shortly after Christianity became the state religion. And there's religions all throughout time, and all different and all made up bullshit. Also we have proof of the big bang and can measure that proof through the cosmic background radiation. So stephan colbert saying it can't be proven or were just talking someone's word for it (and equating acknowledging our current understanding of the universe with faith based brainwashing is just horrible intellectually. It's shallow and underhanded, but religion needs these tactics to continue the conversation)

feel sorry for you

Americans can't even find their right father's. No wonder you struggle to find the right God.

Karengulu Until you come to the cesspool that is the comments section hahah

That was the most friendly, informative, and warm debate that I've ever seen.

It was a very odd conversation considering that it's 2017. It would've been full of PC triggered bullshit with everyone else.

William F Buckley Jr is turning over in his grave now that Trump is president.

Tim Thompson

Idk about u but I'm taking notes from this video 😂

It is no argument whatsoever. It is a very poor attempt to try and show that the believer is also an atheist just like him, but it's false. An Atheist doesn't believe in ANY Gods. He believes in one. So he is not an atheist in any way shape or form. You can't be an atheist towards 300 Gods and not be an Atheist in regards to one God... because then you are not an atheist.

@@jamesemerson4102 At no point did Ricky claim that Colbert was an atheist...

A monotheist can easily say: oh yeah, some of those pagan Gods were probably real. They were either angels sent by God to spiritually prepare humans for the full revelation, or demons sent to confuse and distort

@@jamesemerson4102 His may not be an argument, but religions completely denying and contradicting each other, ridiculing one another's existence is one hell of an argument to make..

People usually go into attack mode when they don’t have a rebuttal.

Because you are reading KZfaq comments. Not actually listening to real one-one conversations.

Sabbath is no longer for us to keep, otherwise we would ruin the 6th commandments, which says: DO NOT KILL! Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: it is the sabbath or the 6th commandment. Cant have both. Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

@@theharshtruthoutthere Also: Earth is 6000-10000 years old.....according to the same book.

@@theharshtruthoutthere one slips through the cracks every time.

@@theharshtruthoutthere Your comment here is a perfect example of where religious people overstep the mark. You said _"Souls, know and understand the bible as we all should:"._ You're simply attempting to project your beliefs onto others as if it were mandatory and it isn't. Religion has gotten away with that mandate for centuries.

@@EvoraGT430Catholics don’t believe in new Earth creationism, widely rejected in fact. Only biblical literalists, mostly Baptists, believe in new-Earth, as well as the growing problem of the evangelical movement

True. But his arguments aren't good in the apologic Field. For instance: his argument about. There are millions of God's how do you know your God is the real one. Here's the thing, there are millions of scientific theories, how do we which one is the right one? Truth and evidencial basis. There is historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and there are many good cases made by Dr. Lincona, Gary habernas, even Athiest scholars such as gurd Ludemann attest that, the evidence points to the fact the disciples must have seen something, and he goes on to make the point that, regarding the evidence the disciples claimed that something was the risen Christ. Otherwise, the strong testimonial evidence for martyrdom and the rise of Christianity wouldn't have a good evidencial explination. All the best.

@@reshearchisgood6966 Well put.

@@reshearchisgood6966 There are no historical records besides from some Greek historians who mentioned some Messiah or some shit who was killed and nothing happened after that, no Earthquake e.t.c. Second of all, scientific theories are all accepted if they transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory. Nice try though. Noah's Ark 100% didn't exist, so didn't Adam and Eve otherwise we would have all kinds of mutants running here from incestous relationship.

@@reshearchisgood6966 Nope : there are millions of theories in science, but they all point out to the same result, this is how we can know. If there are not pointing out to the same result, it means we don't know yet, or we are not studying the right thing, ergo it is just an hypotesis so far.

@@buzz1251 hello my friend I hope you are doing well let's get started: Claim 1: "no historical records besides greek historian who mentioned a killed Messiah or some S**t" I love you bro, and you are more knowledgeable than me. But by the fact you say "or some S**t" indicates you might have not done research on the topic (or you might have I guess I will find out in your next reply) The evidence for the resurrection is a cumulative case, with the core documents being: 1. the letters of Paul if you add the witnesses in his letters (I have evidence for this if you want to talk about it) It adds up to 513 witnesses of the risen Jesus Christ. Next we have The four gospels: 2.Matthew 3.Mark 4.Luke 5.John Next Extra-biblical sources: 6.the gospel of Peter 7. The annuals of roman historian Tacitus 8. Joseph's testimonium flavinum. 9.Ignatius. 10.Irenaeus of Lyon. 11.Turtulian 12. Dionysius of Corinth 13. Eusebius: Now their is chruch tradition from Eusebius In Ecclestiacial History. he was simply passing along a tradition which has been the unanimous opinion of the church for two hundred years. Attested by scholars for reliability. And others. Your claim that no records besides some greek historians mentioning some Messiah my friend is false. Claim 2. Scientific theories are only accepted when transitioned from hypothesis to scientific theory. Again you are more knowledgeable than me. And I agree with this claim but it doesn't refute my argument For instance: in the last century the universe was believed by the consensus to be infinite, so it's fits your criteria, However is it correct? Given The BVG therom by Alexander Vilenkin it shows any expanding universe cannot be past eternal therefore shows a universe cannot exist on necessity of its own nature. Now the consensus of scholars do not believe in an eternal universe. That theory is one of many that have passed your transitional criteria and because of future evidence Been proven Wrong. Now I'm going to copy and past this section of this comment and comment it to the guy who commented after you because he literally said a similar thing. My point is that in the same sense we can prove or disprove certain religions my position is Christianity is true given the evidence and all the others are fake. I respect and love Ricky Gervais but he doesn't know what he is talking about. All the best.

John 11:25-26

I think it is a copout. The difference between religious vs. non-religious is much greater than between religions. And many religions acknowledge other believers.

@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist while many don't either and different religions literally show in many ways how faith can be created and interpreted in so many ways that you can never say your religion is the true way of viewing the world or life. Because then you would be debating someone elses faith in something different from yours. If you believe in one god, then why would you believe in other gods that defy the existence of your god?

No it isn't at all. Science is his God, which is made up of multiple types. He makes claims that science would come back the same, yet he knows he has no proof and is making a ridiculously false claim. Science has changed throughout the years and it will continue to do so

@@lloyd8550 I agree, the purely rational person would be agnostic, since science can neither prove nor disprove God. By professing the absolute absence of God, he has just as much faith as a religious person believes there is God.

It was his reaction to the audiance. They where going crazy in the background.

Touche. Good obs man

@@CouldAskYouTheSame Still, not everyone reacts as gracefully.

Not sincerely anyway.

Especially when it comes to religion

Stephens sounds like he has to win this argument though he's just being a nice host

What do you believe was before the "Big Bang"

@@editname8959 I don't know, nobody does, probably colossal amounts of energy and matter colliding. But I'm no cosmologist.

edit name *There is no “before” the Big Bang. That is a meaningless question like what it North of the North Pole.*

@@PhysicsGuy1000 Time started with the big bang. I like Stephen Colbert, but when he talks about this, it just really sounds dumb. Was Stephen watching "Doctor" Frank Turek, and thought to himself "Wow, this fellow really has some new ideas." In other words, Stephen sounds very, very dumb, like Frank Turek.

I think it’s so cool that all people have a chance to have eternal perfect love and beauty that far, far, exceeds anything that we are able to experience here during our earthly life!! That is heaven; and it goes on forever.

OK Atheists - explain Ricky's possessed cup at 3:53. You unbelievers never have any answers.

@@sfender2182 i think it's not so cool that the people claim there's a heaven and have no concrete evidence for it yet expect you to change your world view and morals for it

@avonmaster6628 Actually there is a lot of evidence for the existence of heaven. Study Near Death Experiences (NDE). Many have told about these heavenly (and sometimes hellish) experiences. There was also a new movie (towards the end of 2023) about NDE’s titled Near Death; perhaps check it out. A world view based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church is uplifting in many ways. As Jesus taught; love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and others as yourself (others.. as in everyone).

@@TonyEnglandUKunbelievers 😂. Is that an insult?

It’s not important. It has no place.

@@Luke_275 Much like your comment

@@andreiboroianu946 the irony:

​@@Luke_275Need more context for irony to work

Gada101 Exactly how I felt. Although I don't agree with Stephen, this did not lower my respect for him

+

Me three! Especially the question "how can something come out of nothing" invites that kind of speculation and debate which is fun, not destructive. To get there within a 5 minute time slot is pretty bold.

Gervais makes some good points to be sure. Take his example about holy books vs scientific facts. But in my mind, the two aren't competitive at all. They are on two different planes. Take a thesis about microbiology vs beethoven's 5th symphony. Both describe some type of order: one about order of biological science, one about arrangement of tones from various instruments. I would be willing to say that BOTH are works of genius. And both DEFINITELY exist in a real way. But if you tried to determine the existence of Beethoven's 5th by the standards of microbiology, you might be forced to conclude the symphony doesn't exist. Same goes the other way around. They exist FAR OUTSIDE the realms of one another. You couldn't judge microbiology based on principles of music, and vice versa. The same goes for God. He is SO FAR OUTSIDE the realms of music, of microbiology, etc, that to expect to find perfect conclusive evidence of him in one of those fields is very strange to me. Instead, He (God) leaves clues in those fields. Which, if I'm honest, makes getting to know Him WAY more interesting and FUN!!!

Its called evolution, the universe has been around for billions of years. We so happen to be on a planet that is the perfect distance between a star for life to form and evolve. And sure the ink dots on a paper showing notes can exist, but unless people who understand music can translate it and play it, its just a piece of paper with scribbled ink. Lets take nature for example if you can make a formula translating certain trees that look certain ways into notes, you now have trees creating music. How a mind can take information and translate it what ever way you want is called imagination, does not have to exist but in the mind it can.

Lorenzo Reyes lol

Hell, the last 7 words of your sentence were redundant.

They'd be busy smashing eggs on their heads.

He'd randomly start clapping and burst into laughter

Ricky: "God" Fallon: hahahaha

@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Those are just words, though. Such words worked for centuries but it's 2023, you have to prove what you are claiming with real evidence. Ricky will be held accountable for his beliefs, will he? What evidence do you have that proves your claim to be true?

@@user-zv5nu1nf2g Watch how easy it is to do what you're doing. _"Ricky is wrong though and he will be held accountable for his beliefs and his decision to lead others away from Allah during the time of judgment. Unless he accepts Allah."_ It's too easy to do this routine for any religion.

@@user-zv5nu1nf2g With respect, you're doing it again. You're typing things without attaching any evidence to them. They're just words unless you attach some evidence to prove your words are true. _"And God will honor that"_ you claim. Without typing 500 words of avoidance, prove with evidence that god will do that. And watch how many words you type to dodge providing that evidence.

@@user-zv5nu1nf2g You know and I know that the only evidence you have for your claims is _"You read it in an old book."_ - the Bible. And that's a book that Einstein called _"Primitive legend."_ I've been religious. I've been where you are. Telling people _"Believe in Jesus and you will be saved."_ Until someone asked me to produce the same evidence I'm asking you for.

@@user-zv5nu1nf2g ok here's the question. _"Apart from reading it in a book, what evidence do you have that dismisses all other gods and proves your god created the universe?"_

I like how Gervais responded. He did a lot better than Bill Maher who acts like everybody who is religious is stupid.

Joseph TotalFestTime!!! I can see why BIll Maher's attitude would turn people off. I'm not the greatest fan of his myself and I think it's for that reason. I actually like him best when he's just being pure logic without the posturing because it's then that his emotional, logical, and social intelligence shine through in a way that is just beautiful to see from someone who has a voice in society. I get the sense from seeing how different he is when appearing on other peoples' shows that his posturing, arrogant attitude is more of a "character" than anything. And in fairness, he is standing up to some people who are really staunch and arrogant in the opposite direction of beliefs. So maybe that's why he feels it's necessary to be that way about it. And I'd venture to say there is something of a double standard going on when it comes to atheists versus theists. Theists who are arrogantly confident in their beliefs (in my experience) get a lot less flak for it than atheists do. An atheist acts a little aggressive, pushy, or even just overly confident about being an atheist and they are accused of being arrogant, rude, etc. A believer does the same and we call them a preacher and give them a microphone. It doesn't help that thematically, atheism is usually rooted in an exercise in logic, whereas theist belief is usually rooted in faith (an emotional kind of belief). And it's really easy to sound and be arrogant when it's logic versus emotion. Many of us would probably end up sounding a little arrogant and patronizing if we said "it's not raining outside" and someone insisted that it is, despite the sensations showing that when you go outside, you don't get wet. And I think that's how it can end up feeling for many atheists, is like it's as obvious as whether it's raining outside; the evidence isn't there. But then we are supposed to be nice to the people who believe it's raining outside and tell them that they can think what they want, and we will be respectful of what they believe. And that can be really hard to do.

TransparentLabyrinth All that logic sounds impressive until you remember that neither the existence of matter nor the origin of matter can be explained logically. I've never heard any atheist explain how matter came to exist out of a void.

earl campbell Well to be fair, the rain analogy I gave may not translate exactly, as there are senses we can use that tell us without question whether it's raining or not (as analogies go, it's not the most accurate I've ever made). That being said, atheism has no special obligation to explain existence in any way, shape, or form, and that's a point that is often confused. Atheism is, at its most basic, the lack of belief in a god, or gods. Deism says there is a creator and they don't interfere. Theism says there is a creator and they intervene in some way. Deism and Theism are explanations for where the universe came from. Atheism is not... it's just disbelieving the claims about there being a divine creator. Agnosticism is (strictly speaking) the belief that it is fundamentally unknowable whether a god, or gods, exist or not. To further complicate things, agnosticism is also often used casually to describe a sort of "fence-sitting" position, where one isn't quite sure whether they believe in a god or not and can't be bothered to make a strong decision about it. The point of all of this is, if you encounter an atheist who has an explanation for how the universe came into existence, it is not a "teaching of atheism." It is an explanation that an atheist has that has nothing to do with atheism itself. Most atheists probably have mixed opinions about how the universe came into being and many probably don't have a strong opinion about it at all. The only thing atheists have in common that pertains to atheism itself is that they aren't buying the "god / divine creator" explanation. If you take a step back from it and you compare the phenomenon of atheism to, say, belief about whether the patriots won the most recent superbowl, you might think that the whole complex naming of different positions on the matter is rather absurd. But we've reached this point of complexity because so many people take it so seriously, this question of where we came from. It is perhaps the most burning question our species has.

TransparentLabyrinth Obviously, I respect your intellect & writing ability. Someone with your IQ knows what I'm getting at with my previous comment. You're also aware that some of us theists are not idiots. If God exists, but has no desire to be scientifically proven yet,... Peace and good will to you.

Why would you admire a logical fallacy though? Ricky's last point is a textbook case of begging the question.

@@angusmcculloch6653 And from an Atheist congrats on having the most Scottish sounding name ever 😎

@@Bruce-vq7ni Hahaha. Thank you!

@@angusmcculloch6653 nice one! I missed that... even though science is incredible and you can see how the same formulas could pop up again if we erased them, you have to assume the conclusion to make the claim that a Holy book wouldn't resurface.

@@angusmcculloch6653 It really speaks for itself. Count the number of gods there have been throughout history and how many religions were based on that god. It numbers three thousand at the very least. Since "god" is supposedly the ultimate entity that means - also at the very least - two thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine of those gods were simply human inventions. If you destroyed their holy books, Ricky is totally correct in saying those books wouldn't return just as they were. That also means - at the very most - only one god and one holy book WOULD come back just as it was, which is as unlikely as it is unconvincing.

Is that sarcasm? It annoyed me how much he wouldn't let him speak

@@marmalontoast jimmy fallon absolutely trumps every single host with interruption hahahahahah

@@marmalontoast Who wouldn't let who speak? It seemed pretty well handled by both sides to me.

@@marmalontoast I agree 100%, the people who can’t see that either just side with Colbert because his beliefs are their own, or they are the people who constantly interrupt and talk over people lol

​@@marmalontoastColbert interrupted one time...which was bad enough, but he didn't do it again.

People may not know he has an upper second-class honours degree in philosophy.

You don’t have to be intelligent to see the flaws in religion

@@TonyEnglandUK According to atheist religion, What is wrong about slavery? Should we ask kmer rouge?

@@MilitantAntiAtheism I've no idea what you just typed and even less idea why you typed it in my direction.

@@TonyEnglandUK More than 110 million people slaughtered in less than 100 years in the name of atheist religion. A very impressive kill score indeed. Even muslims are impressed with the _efficiency_ in genocide.

And that’s his problem, God is real and he has no idea because he’s never given his life to Christ

@@christservant7051 is that why this atheist has had far more success in life than you, a religious person, will ever have? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

@@gordongecko5950 success of what? I’ll have every lasting life. He doesn’t know God and God is not in his heart. He doesn’t have a clue what he believes in that is what an atheist is lol. I follow Gods rule I’m not religious. Religion is a man made thing. If your going to start typing words make sure you come with facts my friend.

@@gordongecko5950 You and him have clearly never read the bible so how can you even have an opinion on something your not educated in. All the fame and success will be burned in hell if he doesn’t repent and give his life to God. He may someday have a change of heart and I pray you and him do.

Cotton Mouth if you believe in god and live under his rules you’re religious you nut

Two people exchanging conflicting beliefs and even applauding the other's presentation of their belief.

That's because he was dead f****** right and there's no counter to that point LOL

@@Omegatonboom I'm an agnostic myself but Stephen's _"And then......... Satan would be raping you"_ was just superb.

@@TonyEnglandUK I thought it was lame. 🤷‍♂️😂 Like he couldn't come up with something better to say. Oh well

@@Omegatonboom same.

Good for you i've had thousands of debates with relatives but at the end when they start to lose they just say god is coming for you and threaten me

shit I'm also trying it on my friends

I’ll point out what’s wrong with it: Ricky’s argument presupposes that God doesn’t exist and therefore wouldn’t preserve His Word. Every scientific book would return in years to come, and whereas the Bible would always be around because the evidence shows that the Christian God exists and wouldn’t allow His Word to crumble to dust.

@@Nameless-pt6oj u didn't understand the premise. Will clarify it for you. "What if u destroy every text & scripture in existence of science & religion ? And then start writing both after 1000 years" Obviously no one would freaking remember the stories of various Gods. But people will understand gravity, magnetism, chemistry etc...& will eventually write the same laws & formulae what u see now.

I did understand the premise. Ricky is presupposing that God wouldn’t preserve His Word for us. The argument itself is unrealistic and shallow. God wouldn’t allow for every Bible to be destroyed, that wouldn’t be possible, and He has preserved His Word remarkably well for us. He said He’d return in the future and I believe He’d return well before that.

@Monkey D. Luffy the formal definitions of debate and dialogue would disagree with you, but if you mean from the standpoint of which one is usually less hostile, then sure, a dialogue would likely be preferable.

I found it pretty astounding that Stephen questioned the validity of science and used that as an argument when all the people on the left are doing is glorify science (as long as it serves their agendas). It shows that he doesn't shy away from strawmanning when his defences have no effect on his debate partner.

Well, I will not 'glorify' Numbers 31:17, as it currently is.

@@chrissonofpear1384 nice try, but you can take anything out of context and it will sound bad. Read the whole Numbers chapter 31 and it is clearly stated they are at war. Worse things have happened when at war throughout history. Don't be that guy who's like the media these days taking things out of context and putting it out there 🙂

@MAD GRUMPYMAN what I believe in or not is irrelevant. Debate by definition is a formal discussion on a particular topic where arguments are put forward, no matter how rational or irrational it is to a particular person outside of that debate. I'm sure you've seen or have friends debate about which movies/games or whatever fictional medium is better and why. No one's going to question whether you're rational/irrational about debating those kinds of topic. It just so happens you're someone who finds one side of this debate irrational, and that's fine.

It's hard to believe the notion that there might NOT actually be a man in the sky controlling everything, and brings people he likes up there with him after they die is something that most people may not have thought about before.

Dude, I do not know about you roryl, but I had a talk with the big guy in the sky yesterday when I prayed. Yea, he was like "Hey man, what the heck are you all doing down their? I sent Donald Trump to be a clown, not your President! Don't make me send my only begotten son back down there!"

But I thought god decided to make people vote for him? Because its his plan right?

The producers allow this sort of thing, not the host.

And people say Stephen is a one trick pony....

yup

@Liam O’Neil get ready for several weeks of hilarity and enlightenment 👌

Bro you‘ve been missing out if you haven‘t watched him by now lmao enjoy it you‘re in for some treats!

Lol

@@thegreathutt Dude honestly I feel like I've been straight up deprived until now

Hector De Jesus .....science and religion actually work in harmony, they are not pitted against each other.

@@sfender2182 Please explain to me how ancient ideology based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of the universe caused by sheer ignorance and perpetuated by willfully and actively denying new information "works in harmony" with a methodology based on an ever growing understanding of the universe by constantly updating its information about it through constant investigation. Please tell me why you are so incredibly behind the times that you even come up with this BS argument.

Yes, Hector.... we all understand you drug addicts want to be treated like normal people.... You could also just take a broom and get rid of all these egg shells....

@@WilbertLek Good work, Wilbert.

@@toddsleezer3580 Your opinions are every bit as bad as the religious people you're condemning. Trying to "convert" them until they believe the same things you do is as bad as religious people doing the reverse.

It's harder being a Christian than an Atheist in an argument for sure.

@@Broc_Obama It sure is haha. Having logic and reason on your side tends to help ease things - makes counter-apologetics quite easy.

It occurred to me in middle school that an alien landing on a version of Earth that is identical to ours but without bibles, would never in a million years come up with the Judeo-Christian creation myth as the reason for Earth's existence. I wrote a paper on it, made my teacher real mad.

@@MamaSymphonia Humans were the same as aliens when they first arrived on Earth. So humans are historical proof that in a short period of time they would come up with that myth over and over again. Nearly every culture in history believed in gods that were responsible for the natural world. If they were unique throughout all time it would imply that there was something specific about their time period that led them to those conclusions. Since as pointed out in the video, the science is likely not to have changed, it would suggest that something else was giving the people of that time period the impression that there were powerful people more similar to them than the animals that they could not see.

​@@nottyseel949 There is no evidence for any of the gods that have been invented by man though. Their invention is prevalent because we're all human and have a tendency to imagine things being done by an agent. And it's really easy to invent a powerful agent that is capable of doing things like throwing lighting bolts (Zeus, for instance). But an alien landing on this planet would never reconstruct the specific legend of Zeus from the available natural evidence. They would never come to the conclusion that a God sent his only son to die for human sins to save them from an eternal torment that the God created in the first place. Outside human culture and the religious texts they produced, there is no physical evidence of any of these supernatural tales, whether Zeus or Jesus. And therefore no good reason to believe they happened.

@@MamaSymphonia Sure, fam. I don't really care about any of that it does not serve any purpose to deny or support what you or anyone thinks, I just think that the point you are making cancels out the point you are making. You imply that some creatures that you do not know exist (aliens of a sort for which you have no reference) would never do in a million years what history proves happened in the only similar creatures that we know of (assuming you meant aliens that would have similar brain function to humans not as in animals). You even said that humans have a tendency to attribute events to an agent. If it is a tendency then it is likely to happen again if you run the experiment again. I'm not talking about or interested in Judeo-Christian myths, but specifically the point you are making.

@Scott Scotty Sounds like the assumptions people made up when they made up the various gods they believed in. Whatever makes you assume aliens would be any sort of intelligent in the way we think of intelligence is probably the same reason people assumed there were other creatures like humans in other realms/dimensions. Could be true as any other complete guess, but the likelihood is, that like the other billions (trillions?) of species of life that we KNOW to exist, aliens are likely not to care about any of these questions or ideas. They are evidently more likely to just eat, sleep, mate, and pay no attention to life or space outside of their immediate environment like every other form of life we know. Humanoid brain patterns could be popular, but we have no evidence to suggest we should assume humans are not a complete anomaly even thinking about the universe and existence in the first place.

yeh he was referring to the holly wood pedo stuff thats what he meant when he said thats why im a good boy ;) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qbhmiMiH1dregps.html&ab_channel=FireFilms

12 12 no

@@robertdavis4313 why the hell would mary appear as a static image in lava

@@robertdavis4313 wow your threshold for evidence is ridiculously low - I have a bridge I want to sell you..

I 100% believe in Rickys theory with science existing again after 1000years and no literature to back it up. However, I think it’s sort of ignorant to not think religion wouldn’t rebound again in the same amount of time. it’s made up, someone will make it up again. I mean, just take Scientology for example, it was brought to life within the last 100 years and has a devoted following.

They’re not gotcha questions at all 😂😂😂

Usually, but here he lost so badly. Still he took it gracefully.

If someone believes in any god, that's nobody's business but theirs, and if someone doesn't believe in god, likewise. What I loved about this conversation is that neither Ricky nor Stephen had any desire to inflict their beliefs on the other. The greatest wisdom of all is just four words. _"Live and let live."_

@@bisschenbildung1209To be fair, Colbert was being a gracious host and allowed Gervais to speak a lot more than he did himself.

I'm nearly 70. When I was young, here in England, practically everybody went to the Church of England every Sunday. It was an accepted part of life. In 2023, over ninety-nine percent of the population *_don't_* go. I don't know what the figures are for America but I think the world is finally walking around all religions.

@@upturnedblousecollar5811 According to atheist religion, What is wrong about genocide? Should we ask mao?

​@@MilitantAntiAtheismatheism is not a religion, nor is it a moral code. It is a simple disbelief in the existence of a God.

In the UK, atheism is practically the norm now.

@@aurademon Atheist religion claims that men can give birth. Islame claims that women have semen production near their neck. What is the _difference_ between atheist religion and islame?

na ricky is just right lol

krillins moustache he’s right and there is no need to get mad. The book example is perfect.

I disagree mate, one of them talked calmly and with logic and reasoning the other had nothing to say to back up their claims and resorted to joking their way out of the debate.

Burn in hell sinner! 😇

That's just called being an adult. Sounds crazy i know but everyone should try it at some point in their life.

Bruh. Both hate god. Period.

It’s a really good point I never thought about! If god did write the Bible and then disappeared for what 2000+ years now, the belief system would only restart if he did exist and rewrite it again. We as a society don’t need a belief system to create a kingdom/country anymore. So it would be an interesting turn of events if someone created a new belief system just to do it.

@@YokedGirthZ The Bible itself says the word of God is written on the hearts of mankind (conscience). The attributes of the Holy Spirit (AKA God) (1 of 3 God Heads that Stephen believes in) are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control. If you destroyed the Bible stories would be lost. However, much of it would survive in the natural conscience of all humanity. Also the theoretical game is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. Ricky says IF all the books were destroyed. Well if Christ is truly the son of God and God is all powerful. Then if He is truly God, He would not allow his instruction manual and stories of His love for us be destroyed. Hitler tried to destroy books such as these. Probably could have done it but he failed. So the IF game is silly. It hasn't happened. So what's the point in saying IF? That's the same logic he accuses people of spiritual belief to use. Love and respect for both. Just sharing thoughts

​@@JustHuman87 God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?

@@YokedGirthZ thats a toddler's logic

Yeah, Isaac Newton wasn't much of a thinker, he's just some dumb religious nut who discovered gravity....

+Heatblaze Are you suggesting Newton wasn't indoctrinated as a child? If not then I fear you've embarrassingly missed the point. (PS The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and pitiful. Avoid.)

Don't underestimate how weak minded and stupid many adults turn out to be, there will always be men who want to manipulate them for their own gain you can bet whoever it was that created the various religions did so for their own profit just like the disgusting animal Joseph Smith who just wanted more wives so he made up one of the most bullshit religions of all MORMONISM! Well he got his 40 wives and the world got another whackadoo religion, thanks stupid people!

Joe Deiser Joe Deiser When mankind was ignorant and had no understanding of why certain things happened they attributed everything that they didn't understand to a supernatural power. Of all that we have learned as a species we have never found a supernatural power to be responsible for any of it. If religions didn't fill the minds of children with these BS claims they would grow up never seeing any evidence of it either. Religion would die. As it should.

Joe Deiser Both of those statements are true, but they have no bearing on the fact that without brainwashing children religions would disappear in short order.

I would say that makes him an adequate debater. Your standards are a bit low IMO.

@@ACharmedEarthling sure, what’s your standards?

He is a terrible debater. He is a comedian

@@ricco48219 He's got a degree in philosophy from University College London. I haven't seen him in a formal debate situation, but I doubt he would be terrible.

@@ACharmedEarthling well I wont say terrible then. However he doesn’t have formal practice. I don’t expect an fresh out of highschool player to dominate freshman year in college either tho so. Lol

It's a quote of something Ricky said. Someone wrote to RG and said that would be his fate if he didn't become Christian.

So sad, yet so haunting 😔

@Jordan P its kind of dumb to not believe in god but believe it was a test...

Daniel Goleš very bad choose of words my fried....life as a mortal man or woman is very very short... life after is for eternity for the true believers and real followers ofJESHUA!

@@stefanmacdonaldbrown6823 Sorry you have to hear this from me but Santa Claus doesn't exist... Same goes for afterlife, god, angels and other fictional characters...

@@stefanmacdonaldbrown6823 You're religious. You want to be right more than you want the truth.

yeah, exactly. This problem have no solution, god can't satisfy me as the answer.

I was going to comment the same thing.

I was a puzzled as Gervais when he said that. I thought something was god.

Yeah, if it wasn't the way it is, you wouldn't be able to ask that question. So why put god as the reason if you actually don't know.

Whenever I think about this, and talk about it with people, it becomes very philosophical. Because someone will argue that consciousness, which is what God would have to be made(?) out of, is very complex. Then the question of who exactly decides what complexity is comes up, whether the atoms and molecules that make up the universe are definitively _less_ complex than a stream of conscious thought, even _after_ all of the observable universe has formed. If it really makes sense that it formed into _anything_ at all, the difference between conscious beings and inanimate objects, what it means if there's a creator but no capital "G" "God" and the possibility of "God" being the lead programmer to a computer simulation, or some kind of bizarre alternate reality "game." Like some weird Matrix fan fiction. Even the "we are all someone's dream" argument can't be completely dismissed by someone thinking deeply enough. That's why I don't think it's wrong to shift the question. There's a good chance our species won't survive long enough, or evolve smart enough to answer a question that is clearly too sophisticated to be fully understood anyway. I _believe_ that's why it's important to let people believe what they want.

And i oop-

But then Ricky made his point right after.....

It's a ridiculous statement because everything you can be told scientifically is objective, tested, reviewed and falsified, and this prat says he believes in a god just because he wants to direct his gratitude towards something, what a moron

yeah it just set into stone the fact that stephen colbert is a complete idiot

It's not ironic. It's an attempt by theists to claim that science and religion are on equal footing. That we "blindly" follow Newton. They aren't, of course. They skip the burdon of proof Newton had to meet and don't acknowledge the community that set the bar and accepts his proof when the bar is met.

His arguments are dumb af, I can make the same argument: everyone is a theist he just believes in one less god than the rest. You see how stupid it sounds ?

Jordan Peterson

Ha

@@XcL-Ignites While I like some of Jordan's work, his stance on religion is ridiculous (saying that all atheists are murderers).

I love theology and a philosophical debate would be cool... Did you know that 150 pair of homosexuals defeated the Spartan army... And I don't remember the Hebrews forcing anyone to believe in Jehovah, Emmanuel or Melchizedek One God many names... What they did do was demonstrate the love and compassion the Lord has for his children... Their lifestyle was theirs to choose outside of that community... Even though I am a god-fearing Christian that is the way it needs to be in our nation... Instead of trying to destroy the Democracy in this country the Republicans would be busy working at building their communities... And helping others to do the same and if you don't want to go into a certain community because there's homosexuals there you have that right... If you don't want to go on certain community that's all minorities you have that right... If you don't want to go into a community because their all Muslims you have that right... But the RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY wants to tell all communities how they should live and who they should pray to... While the evil reds decide some communities don't deserve to live at all... When the poor won't fight the Red Republicans wars anymore that's when they attack us in our homes financially... Encouraging us with her money to fight amongst ourselves for crumbs... This is what the Red Russian Republican party has in store for us... But like in Russia when you're attacking someone else it's awful hard to build for yourself...

Mine too !

@@nidashafa9168 That's because it never got destroyed..?

nida shafa whats your point?

@@nidashafa9168 So why did you bring it up if its not relevant to the video?

@@nidashafa9168 Holy texts support some pretty morally abhorrent things, so I wouldn't like them to be used as guidance.

nida shafa oh so you think killing, stealing & raping people is a good moral guidance for people? and I’d like to inform you that there is no proof that the Quran didn’t change throughout these years.

clever but not really respectable

how come you happen to be reading my messages, processing it, and then trying to refute me saying there's a purpose by using an organ in your body that's extremely complicated that you use to move your fingers to press these buttons, and your dna more complicated than any man made computer in existence, no matter how far in the future? what made it so you'd be like that and then come here and have emotions that you use to tell me that I'm an idiot with your anger that you for some reason have at something like this?

you guys purposely go to whatever video mentions religion and argue because that's all you do and you never question why or how you're able to this is not politics but it is treated like it I'd rather spend my time using my life instead of doing this

@@pixeled9683 isn’t that what ur doing?

@@pixeled9683 The host spent the entire time talking over him, let’s not get into respect here

​​@@InfoStrikeI think you didn't listen carefully. He never said that the religious books could disappear. Like he's not saying that they'll stop existing magically. He's just postulating a possibility that if someone "willingly" destroyed all the religious books. There is no chance that even after 1000 years even if some kind of religion is formed again it would be the same as previous one. Fortunately, that's not the case with science.

​@@InfoStrikeobviously he doesn't mean literally

@@InfoStrike I think you are misunderstanding his scenario

​​@@InfoStrikeHe's saying that if we erased science and all religions, then science will still return as the same science. Religions will return as completely different stories. Christianity would not be the same Christianity. Islam when that return as the exact same Islam. Because science is based on research and evidence and fact, whereas religion is based on storytelling and mythology.

But it is not faith. It is confidence based on evidence. Faith is gullibility.

@@ellea3344 So the only claims worthy of consideration are those that have empirical evidence?

@@jeanvandorst4287 Let's turn that around for a second. Are you saying that the ones that don't *are* worthy of consideration? Are unicorns, leprechauns, vampires, etc all up for debate, too?

even the assumptions of the scientific method cannot be proven

With respect, Mr Gervais didn't prove anything whatsoever. Where is the proof exactly? There was none - he simply made the mother of all assumptions (amazingly, unchallenged by the host), which proved to be a good sound-bite. His comment was received rapturously (as all populist positions are these days), but his argument was astonishingly flawed (please see my post above).

I can respect that view, of course. One hopefully can also see why BITS of the same view might make others feel worse, or frightened, or confused, as well...

That's an incredibly ignorant view.

It's probably the safest place to debate from and it's a position that even I, as one vehemently against religion, can see as a logical point of view. "I know there's issues with the existence or not of God, I don't believe in every aspect of it and nor can I explain it, my belief stems from a wish to feel secure and comfortable in life". That's not a dangerous point of view, it's not hurting anyone, it's completely within one person.

@@combatwombat2134 Not hurting anyone..... until you indoctrinate your children with the bible from an early age, vote for policies that mirror what you read in your rather immoral book and continue to influence others, both friends and family, to avoid pursuits of knowledge and science in favor of "saving" themselves. Don't be fooled: it's absolutely a dangerous position.... arguably more dangerous than the true religious nuts because at least those nuts are so extreme that it scares people away. I agree that there is nothing *inherently* wrong with belief for the sake of comfort but if we're being practical, the effects are predominantly the same because your belief won't be any "less" if it comes from a place of fear of the unknown/death -- you'll ultimately indoctrinate yourself entirely as there's no true comfort in being on the fence between two positions.

I mean that's how I feel too tbh. Deep down I know I'm an atheist but it feels nice to believe there's some kind of force or being out there with a plan. Praying also feels good because it's basically a form of meditation and, again, offers a semblance of having some sort of control over things that, logically, are completely random. I basically just pick bits from different religions to suit me though, like a buffet. I have no interest in actually joining an organised religion.

Not really. He's paraphrasing Richard Dawkins. Its not like he came up with the example of 2999 vs 3000 gods in that moment.

@@orlandocarrillo7132 true. I guess the timing of it made it cool :-)

@@TheHolym4n you didn't understand. I'm not saying its wrong. I'm just saying that the original comment is wrong.

That argument is not really that good.

@@Terry-nr5qn it's not really meant to be a argument and if it was it would still beat whatever a religious person would argue considering they literally just believe in a myth😂

@@Terry-nr5qn It's not really an "argument" though, what is it arguing? It's just meant to show how he thinks of beliefs in gods.

Sunrider It is actually. For example hundreds or maybe even thousands of people are potentially my father yet only one of them is actually my father. And it’s the same thing with religion according to people of faith. Many religions are potentially true but only one of them are actually true. So saying i just reject one more then you do isn’t really a good argument. I believe there are much better arguments for the disbelief in God then that.

@@edmqnd8128 "Many religions are potentially true but only one of are actually true". No they could ALL be false.

Yup.

You too huh

I wouldn’t come here if weren’t for Gervais. Can’t stand Colbert!

I'm from the past... What happened?

Hahaha shhhiiittttt

Haha!

Keksi Nobody gives a fuck mate.

KingOfMadCows hahaha

its all bullshit get over it

+Keksi Can you prove it?

God is not believed to be true without evidence.

@@mohannadessam1783 Neither are Unicorns. There is evidence of their existence everywhere you look.

@@garypudup2109 And an example would be?

@@mohannadessam1783 There is as much evidence for the existence of unicorns as there is gods. Gotcha.

@@garypudup2109 You have already said that. What I'm asking for now is an example.

@Deanna McMahon As a Catholic I also believe in science. For my philosophy, and for moral and spiritual guidance, I am so glad that we have the teachings of Jesus Christ and the church that he established; the Catholic Church. There is also a teaching office of the church, The Magisterium, that makes sure that Jesus’ teachings remain true and unchanged throughout the centuries. So, yes, do good things here! ..a lot is depending on it - and spend eternity in heaven, where the tremendous love and beauty and happiness is far, far, beyond what we experience here on earth!

@@sfender2182 Ask yourself some major questions here. 1) Out of the four thousand other religions, isn't it a little suspicious how you dismissed all of them except the one that was most-popular in your country? 2) How many of those competing religions' holy texts did you read besides yours? 3) If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that Islam was the truth, would you switch religions?

ha

onlinedudeman Relax dude we are not attacking the good part, we are attacking the bad part of religion that we REALLY NEED OPPOSITION, look europe the atheist are the majority do a google on it and other thing, the highest quality of life it is on europe.

Alternative Facts Survivor quality = convenience.. "home is where the heart is! google that if you want dude :)

onlinedudeman Whaaat ?, im trying to say that, with more religion in one society the less is the quality of life, it is just facts, im trying to say that there is no such thing as atheist there is just supernatural believers, it is like afairyest, there is NOT such think, so relax dont need to be upset with us.

Alternative Facts Survivor you fucked up there m8. religion can be described or defined if you will as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." don't get your nickers in a twist .. setting down jim :)

uhforja I'm a Christian and use that argument a lot actually. It's called Pascal's Wager

you don't have to believe in God and do good things. I for one don't believe in God and people tell me I'm a good person. Tbh I do good things like be nice to strangers, volunteer at soup kitchens, give to the poor because it makes me feel good, not because some entity is going to punish me. All I know is the hormones and neurotransmitter that are released in my body help reinforce that behavior and that makes me a good person. No belief in any religions needed.

great point actually

One of the ten commandments is to not worship a false God, not don't worship the one god. Sounds like it would be better if you did the good deeds without worshiping a God, less chance of getting it wrong. I don't believe in God but i'm praying on my death bed for the extra coverage

namdar bleh that isn't the point of the wager though. Christianity teaches that good works can not save you, only faith can. The good works in Christianity comes from a desire to emulate Christ in your life, which you should really strive to do if you have faith. You don't need to believe in God to do good works, but you must believe in God to spend eternity with Him.

I always ask them the same thing. Where did God come from? IF your argument is that we had to come from somewhere and had to be created by someone or something that where did God come from? Who created GOD?

God is unique. That’s how it is possible.

​@@jeffwhitney3369The problem is that when we talk about God we often anthropomorphize this identity into a supernatural being that we imagine can be distinguished by the universe containing him as a kind of entity similar in some aspects to commom biological entitys. If we want to talk about God as an ultimate identity we should recognize the fact that for him to be ultimate, he has to be equivialent to reality itself. Ny doing this we can also prove that he does exist since we know that there is such a thing as reality. Since we exist as parts of reality, mental aspects also exist as part of reality and therefore we can anthropomorphize him to a degree.

He concedes the point that the Bible is a work of complete fiction. I think he just believes in SOMETHING and not necessarily exactly what the Bible tells him. A prime mover like he said.

But he claims to be Catholic so how can he say the Bible is a complete work of fiction.

He just said he believes in the trinity. That's god, Jesus and the space ghost. I'm pretty sure he's just one of those cherry-picking Catholics. He believes in the nice stuff, just nothing that's harmful to society or contradictory to proven science.

He has experienced tragedy? I'm not knowledgeable about his past.

Nivesh Proag that is what google is for.

I just wish it had been longer, I love the fact they both kept the discussion humorous and respectful.

There's a very interesting longer discussion between Stephen Fry and Craig Ferguson from a good few years back along similar topics. Look out for that one, it's here on YT somewhere.

I find it interesting that these discussions come up so much in the US. Where I live in Scandinavia it is up to yourself if you are religious or not and leave it to others what they want to think or not. Nothing to quarrel about and it is not disturbing the community feeling as a whole. I gather that it has historic reasons that those who were unsatisfied and wanted all to have same believes as them were those who wandered off to the US back in time. And now they are gathered in groups over there all being unsatisfied with each other :)

​@@cathal4921 I like discussions between atheists and theists

Deep down you know that’s not true. Romans 1-2.

@@wendycunningham-zi5xj The sun is approximately 93 million miles from earth. The Trimurti consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. One of these was discovered and the other was invented.

@@wendycunningham-zi5xj What is "the natural use of the woman" ? (Romans 1:27)

@@wendycunningham-zi5xj If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? (Romans 2:26). I certainly hope so, otherwise there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

And nobody saying they're better than the other

But he did. He called it all fiction. And he seems to be right.

That's how it's done in most civilised countries

A conversation would mean both contributed something

Life needs to be more like this

Colbert lost the battle there right away!

"the whole universe was in an atom.." That's really dumb. That's REALLY dumb. Let's go with it.

Gervais is right and he won and atheists always win any debate because they don't have "faith, beliefs and feelings" behind them, they have FACTS. :) But you should always debate nicely.

Paula G Whyte First of all did you hear him explain agnostics? That means they DO NOT actually know and so it is a Faith based Belief as well. Secondly their science "facts" work against them. To say there is nothing beyond what we can see is ignorant as we only see a super small part what is all around us. It is small minded think you know much of anything when science admits that energy spectrums are infinite in both directions from what we experience. There is a Mind behind everything because it works and is productive and is coded and has meaning and purpose. Denying God is a defense against conscience and/or ego.

sorry for typos.. this touchy dainty technology is a bit discriminatory.

@Tokechan Ricky didn’t make a good point. Most people have never even heard of most of these other 2,999 “gods”. How is it that someone is denying belief in a God if they have no knowledge of these other Gods?

​@@sfender2182they've heard of some of them lol and don't believe in them. What's one more?

And a question that can not being answered.

@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo So? An atheist's "I don't know" doesn't make a theist right by default. You don't win just because you have AN answer.

@@JMUDoc I agree, and for the record I am an atheist.

@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo Then why do theists seem to think our ignorance is their evidence? I wish Gervais had pushed this point - Colbert would have run into a wall, conversationally.

@@JMUDoc I have no idea, I think you better ask a theist about that but be warned the answer will probably make no sense.

that's how arguing works...if you understand the other guy's argument you move on to another One, no? What am i missing?

@@arbestcrontisb4248 not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, you're missing this. In order to make a point, it should be a complete thought. If its interrupted, then the person isn't listening which effectively means you're wasting your breath.

@@davibrass if i understand your argument there is no point in waisting our time on something we both already know....no? Might sound rude but that's how it works when you talk with somebody...

@@arbestcrontisb4248 There's also the fact that during a debate both sides are unlikely to change their minds, it's usually meant as a public demonstration to prove/show other people and persuade an audience, an interruption both gives an unfair advantage to one person and is relatively rude (which I personally don't mind)

@@arbestcrontisb4248 my takeaway Is if you ask a question, listen to the answer without ASSUMING you know the complete thought. If you're a host, be polite. Besides, that host found that he was being outsmarted and that's the reason he interrupted so that he can try to discredit Gervais

I may be wrong here but I think most Americans who claim to be religious just do so because they want pollsters and religious salesmen to leave them alone, lol.

He doesn’t care lol

@Mysticalsam It’s well known that the Trinity (three persons in one God) is a Catholic doctrine also shared by most Protestants and non-denominational believers. That’s around 2 billion believers in this doctrine. Would you also absolutely love it if the crowd laughed if a believer in Islam (more than 1 billion believers) explained (not jokingly) that Allah is their God ?

@@sfender2182 That's an american, christian audience. Explain why they laughed when colbert answered the question by saying one god, three persons, which is what's well known? What was funny about that 'factual' statement?

@Mysticalsam I was guessing that you said that you “absolutely loved” the audience laughing at the idea of 3 persons in one God, because you too - thought that this was a ridiculous idea that deserved to be laughed at. While I agree with you that this was an American Christian audience - as the American culture gets farther and farther away from a devout belief in Catholicism and other forms of Christian worship - what was just a few decades ago seen as sacred by many people, is now viewed as something that is worthy of ridicule and laughter. Just look at the changes in the culture such as: a few decades ago an unwed mother was seen as someone who felt shame that she was pregnant outside of marriage (her baby might not have the love and support of a mom and a dad, and sex outside of marriage was seen as sinful) - but today?? Sinful? You’ve got to be kidding me; we’re way past judgements about that sort of thing! And the result of this change in attitudes? Compare statistics of how many fatherless families now exist; and what is the effect of this on society?

@@sfender2182 Well, I don't know. More recently, Leviticus 25:46 has been seen as worthy of ridicule, or even scandal. Why, meanwhile, was it not, in 400 AD? Or tidied up appropriately? Also, how do you see 2 Samuel 12:18, or 2 Samuel 24? As well as marriages... in Deuteronomy 21:11? And finally - would any of the Trinity choose, to become angry? Over what they design... and create... senior, unstable angels, included.

Dano Duncan he doesn't have to do shit. Lol let people believe what they want to believe if it's good for them and doesn't directly harm others

Harsh truth is always better than a comforting lie. Also, even if Stephen´s faith does not hurt anyone, he is part of a religion that hurts A LOT of people.

do*right But, as we all know, if it's indirectly harming people that's 100% okay /s

Dano Duncan he's the most pleasant kind of theists

I dunno, he really seems accepting to debating about his beliefs and always commends his opponents on good arguments they make. He seems kind of tame in the aspects of religious retardation, the kind that is generally quite tolerable. I don't think he'd allow religious beliefs influence legislation or judicial decisions or his elective judgment and he generally seems to be somewhat accepting that science is a thing that exists so I suppose there's not really any harm in it.

Views are not worthy of respect, only criticism.

@@eddyeldridge7427 ok boomer

@@AeroZeppelin-rb4pt I'm a millennial, dipstick. Born in '88.

@@eddyeldridge7427 That's so dumb I can't even fathom an answer. Not respecting views is why the world is so bad.

Leon Trotsky What makes the world so bad specifically?

Jay Flora until Trump become a President then it all a disagreement and disrespect from Colbert

@@charliestringer1665 Well Trump worked hard on deserving that disrespect.

Jay Flora there’s no nice way of telling someone that they are delusional

Most Star Wars fans are probably scratching their heads right now.

That would make sense if the each god had a mathematically equal value. Meaning, if there were 100 gods, and you believe in one, then you’re a 99% nonbeliever and someone else is a 100% nonbeliever. But in reality, the difference in believing there is 1 or 0 gods is much more than just a 1% leap. In effect, you aren’t moving around within a category, you are destroying the category itself. It’s like saying I believe in one gender and you believe in zero. Some people believe in an infinite number of genders across a spectrum. But there is MUCH more similarity between believing in 1 or 2 genders and believing in 3000+, than either of those are to believing in no genders at all. Again, the first two options maintain the category of gender, the third demolishes it and shows how vastly a different view it really is.

Logan Goff -How? How can you have never heard it put that way before? It's been said thousands and thousands of times, years and years before now.

Except there aren't degrees of theism, its binary, you either are one or you aren't. It's like a vegetarian justifying vegetarianism by saying, “We are all vegetarians when it comes to not eating most species of animals. Some of us just go a few species further.” Or an Amish person saying, “We are all Amish when it comes to not using most of the technology humanity has ever invented. Some of us just go a few technological devices further.”

One man believes the world is round. Another believes it is flat. Another believes it is rectangular. Another believes it's shaped like a Krispy Kreme donut. One more guy believes the earth has no shape at all. He says "I believe in 1 less shape than you all do".

This argument that "You don't believe in 2999 gods and I don't believe in one more" is extremely weak. As a Muslim, this argument can easily be countered. In Islam, we believe in (1) one God (2) who is eternal (3) he begot no one nor was he begotten and (4) there is no one comparable to god [Quran, Surah/Chapter 112]. If you believe in these 4 aspects, you can take all the 2999 gods and you will realize none of them possess these 4 characteristics. They either have multiple gods attributed to divinity or their gods are just weak and comparable to what we see in this world, limited in power. The God in Islam and the God that Muslims believe in must have the qualities of (1), (2), (3) and (4). If not I reject the religion. As a result, all the 2999 so-called gods and all their associated religions are all rejected and there is only one religion that then carries the truth; the religion that highlights pure monotheism and the oneness of God that was meant for all of mankind.

John Ricotta but it’s not, it’s your parents your church yours friends and family and the bible

@John Ricotta Prophets are humans, the book is written by humans.

@John Ricotta Actually, yes it does. Your family and friends and whoever wrote thr bible told you that it is a message from the lord. That doesn't make it factual. People lie, especially when they can obtain power through their lies. It happens all the time. First scientific studies on climate change was done by people who later opposed it heavily to sell their product and obtain power. Why do you think it was different 2000 years ago? Also, this was not a 'friendly conversation'. This was one man using logic and reason while the other explained how thinking of his imaginary friend makes him feel.

@John Ricotta But you can't prove God told them anything.

John Ricotta that would be cute if god was real

@Jonesyb90 I hope that one day you see your dad again in heaven. I strongly believe in the Catholic faith and would like to suggest you read God is Love by Pope Benedict XVI which is his first encyclical. It can be found on the internet and read for free. Perhaps read about Marian apparitions which are fascinating. Also Eucharistic miracles; Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle is a good place to start. The atheists idea that we are all just a bunch of molecules with no afterlife, and we’re just worm food after we die, this is nonsense.

Mihir Bharucha pretty pointless. Both of 'm were unprepared and spoke with passion about their beliefs, but they couldn't exactly explain why one of them was right. Just a cluster fuck of dumb arguments being thrown from one person to another and vice versa. I like Colbert and judging from his past , I can understand why he's a devoted Catholic. But fuck this pointless conversation and settle your discussion about faith 'backstage', Colbert.

Mihir Bharucha It's those damn protestants that mess everything up

Damiën They are trying to make good television by having impromptu conversation on sensitive subjects.

Mihir Bharucha Was this even a conversation? It's a Christian trying to checkmate an atheist, the atheist it's only using facts, the Christian is only using faith

Lol was it the first time in the history? Usually nobody cares about the other's beliefs during a conversation