George Carlin on Religion. This basically convinced me in 7th or 8th grade that god wasn't real.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o - on religion as a whole

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU - on 10 commandments

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE - sanctity of life


I mean I feel he disproves all of these I'm just interested as to how you would refute this because I feel like you can't.

George Carlin is funny as hell.
That's all I have to say.

Dude can you not just sum it up?

Dude can you not just sum it up?

god does not exist b.c. there is no proof.

the ten commandments are artificially inflated to ten and dont make any sense

life is not sacred for not all life is valued and was just made up

i assume you would like to watch the video because not only is it more informative but its also fucking hilarious. Carlin is considered the 2nd greatest comedian of all time behind Richard Pryor (in my opinion hes better)

George Carlin is amazingly funny, doesn't disprove my view though.

George Carlin is amazingly funny, doesn't disprove my view though.

I mean what he says is logical and makes sense...so I'm wondering how this doesn't convince you or at the least create skepticism?

No, I can't refute it nor do I find it humorous in the slightest.

god does not exist b.c. there is no proof.

To say God isn't real because we have no evidence that he exists is as fallacious as saying God exists because there's no evidence that he doesn't. To be honest with you, I am not very impressed with George Carlin's arguments.

I mean what he says is logical and makes sense...so I'm wondering how this doesn't convince you or at the least create skepticism?

My view isn't a religion, I consider it more of a science that has to do with metaphysic ideas and it has scientific evidence. Most people who belong to the science of religion would ignore these results and continue to look at the same four pieces of the chess board, content with the closed off world they have made for themselves while ignoring the rest of the playing field.
Religion can hinder progress and close many ideas, leaving you in a small shell, perceiving only four pieces of the chess board and ignoring the 28 others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

No one can refute it, because they aren't provided as arguments. They are jokes that play on the beliefs of atheism(probably because he is one). You refute arguments, you can't refute jokes.

lol at the "booo" at 2:12

To say God isn't real because we have no evidence that he exists is as fallacious as saying God exists because there's no evidence that he doesn't. To be honest with you, I am not very impressed with George Carlin's arguments.

Uh what are you talking about?

If you can't find evidence that something exists that means it isn't real. According to your logic the invisible world of flying spaghetti monsters also cannot be disproved so we cannot count those out either. Essentially any ridiculous concoction that anyone comes up with and claims is real cannot be disproved. But that doesn't mean we should take them seriously.

FALSE until proven true. There is just as much proof as invisible spaghetti monsters as there is God, only more people believe in God...That's it.

Also the small fact that we cannot hear, smell, touch, taste or even see God is enough proof along with the fact that no logical argument can be derived for why we don't sense God.

No one can refute it, because they aren't provided as arguments. They are jokes that play on the beliefs of atheism(probably because he is one). You refute arguments, you can't refute jokes.

lol at the "booo" at 2:12

yes you can? all you have to do is say: George god exists b.c. (insert fact and/or logical premise)

its not complicated its just that it can't be proven wrong so your trying to say you can't refute jokes when the whole segment is more of a systematic method of disproving god through a joking manner.

You didn't just honestly try to say he didn't make an argument, because if you did then you are either in denial or very stupid. Perhaps both.

I mean what he says is logical and makes sense...so I'm wondering how this doesn't convince you or at the least create skepticism?

You take a comedian, 'seriously'?

Carlen was the bomb, when I was a kid..

But when I saw this, it barely brought a smile to my face.

If you 'pick' what he said out, he made NO SENSE.

For instance, with the 'Top Ten' being a marketing ploy.. like: The Ten Greatest Hits; The Ten Most Wanted... etc.

Ehhh soundsssss like... 'others' copied the 'marketing' stragedy of God.. since there wasn't a 'top ten' ANYTHING several thousand years ago!!

But I won't insist on bursting any bubbles..

I know you God haters LOVE to sound important..

With your mocking and name calling of people who try to live *GODLY* lives.

The key thing to remember is this: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Uh what are you talking about?

If you can't find evidence that something exists that means it isn't real. According to your logic the invisible world of flying spaghetti monsters also cannot be disproved so we cannot count those out either. Essentially any ridiculous concoction that anyone comes up with and claims is real cannot be disproved. But that doesn't mean we should take them seriously.

FALSE until proven true. There is just as much proof as invisible spaghetti monsters as there is God, only more people believe in God...That's it.

Also the small fact that we cannot hear, smell, touch, taste or even see God is enough proof along with the fact that no logical argument can be derived for why we don't sense God.

It's called the appeal to ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html), you nitwit. Lack of evidence is a reason for abstaining from judgment, not for saying it doesn't exist. Now the historical origins of the Bible, on the other hand, are good reasons for saying the Abrahamic God does not exist, because they are an actual refutation.

If you can't find evidence that something exists that means it isn't real.

Hare is right. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that X does not exist because we haven't found any evidence of X yet.

Evidence could exist, yet we're not aware of it. Evidence could exist, but our systems of measurement might not be capable of noticing it, etc. Ultimately there will always be a possibility of X existing even though we don't have evidence right now.

You could say, however, that not having evidence is exactly what we would expect if a god doesn't exist. That could be an argument in favor of non-existence, but non-existence does not follow necessarily (i.e. you can try to make a compelling case with it, but ultimately it doesn't have to be true out of logical necessity).

Though of course, Carlin wasn't going for a valid and sound argument. He was going for the funny. It's funny even though it's fallacious.

I know you God haters LOVE to sound important..

With your mocking and name calling of people who try to live *GODLY* lives.

1. It was a joke. I doubt Carling believes the Ten Commandments were based on modern marketing tactics...

2. Those "god haters" ( :rolleyes: ) were "bursting his bubble" long before you posted. Hare_Geist, for example, is an atheist and hi correctly explained the logical fallacy being used.


Your ridiculous comments are making you look more stupid each time. Keep them up!

It's called the appeal to ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html), you nitwit. Lack of evidence is a reason for abstaining from judgment, not for saying it doesn't exist. Now the historical origins of the Bible, on the other hand, are good reasons for saying the Abrahamic God does not exist, because they are an actual refutation.

then what about the fact that there is no way to detect God through our senses (after all, thats how we prove things to be real).

The only other way is to draw a conclusion through a logical path i.e. Zeno's Paradox and the existence of God cannot be determined through that method either...


Although it may be a fallcy that doesnt mean we should always realistically consider things to exist just because there is no evidence against them. if we do that then i can make up any completely ridiculous or absurd idea about what happens to us after death and if anyone says its stupid than it makes them look bad. I mean if I told you that when we die we all become Pee-wee herman and live in fish tank you would say thats fucking retarded (b.c. it is) but according to that fallacy since there is no contrary evidence other than common sense you cannot count it out.

I think what Surak said really sums it up:

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

then what about the fact that there is no way to detect God through our senses (after all, thats how we prove things to be real).

You don't know that for certain. God could be living in another Galaxy for all you know. He could have a physical body that could be detected by all the sense, yet we just haven't because we haven't explored that galaxy yet.

Just like the early humans didn't know that far away lands (i.e. other continents, islands, etc.) existed - yet those land masses could have, and can be, detected through the senses.


.. but according to that fallacy since there is no contrary evidence other than common sense you cannot count it out.

That's how logic and reason works: they govern when you can and cannot speak in absolutes. You cannot speak in absolutes, when concerning the existence or non-existence of a god, merely because you claim there is no current evidence.