If youthful rebellion did not exist atheist would have to invent it. Ok, so Ricky Gervais certainly did not invention atheism with Christian values as any sane atheist before him has done the same. Such as Richard Dawkins who is left so very empty by atheism that he considers himself a “cultural Christian.”
Yet, Friedrich Nietzsche laid it out in stating:
When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together.
By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.1
Is it any wonder that Nietzsche went on to virtually predict the most secular and bloodies century in human history: see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist.
Now, let us consider an interview with Ricky Gervais:2
I was about 8 and I was… I was doing something from the Bible and my brother came in, he was older than me, his name is Bob, still is, and he was about 19, and he said, “What are you doing?” I said, “I’m doing this for Jesus, God.” He said, “Why do you believe in God?” And my mom went, “Bob,” and I knew you. I knew then that she was hiding something from me and he was… he was telling the truth. And I thought about it. And I was a bit of a scientist even then. You know, I could read really well by the time I was 3. I suppose I was a bit of an experiment ‘cause I was the youngest by 11 years, you know. And I was into science and nature and I suppose I was a logical person. And I thought… Yeah.
But I learn it through body language. I learn it through that human [interplay] between this two people. The one was worried about what the other one was going to tell me so I assume that my brother had something big to tell me and my mom, protecting me, didn’t want me to hear it. So I just made the conclusion that he was right. [ellipses in original]
At least from this telling, this is yet another case of atheism via rebellion against parental units. “Why do you believe in God?” concluded in “Yeah” but yeah what, yeah why do I and I do not? But why not? What if his mother was worried about what the brother was implying? What is logical and scientific about this?
In the essays Natural Born Atheist and Why Atheism is chosen I provide various examples of people who became atheists for reasons of rebellion against parents, particularly fathers, for emotional reasons, or for no reason at all.
Well, he does further elucidate the matter,
I mean, I… I can’t see that there could be a God, you know. I mean, spiritually and religion is two different things, don’t forget, you know. I can’t make myself believe something I don’t believe. I wish there was a God, you know. And I wish he was all the things people said he was, all powerful and kind and… and all that. By definition, the impossibility is overwhelming, to me. [ellipses in original]
What is logical and scientific about this? What Ricky Gervais can or cannot “see that there could be” is irrelevant to reality as is what is or is not “overwhelming” to him; this is an argument from personal incredulity.
Now, he does have a point about “spiritually and religion” being “two different things” and went on to state:
Then, there’s religion, which use that truth for the… for their own personal gain. And that’s something else. And that’s [barren] and disgusting. Religious fascism is the only thing, apart from animal quarry, that gets my blood boiling. But people who believe in God doesn’t worry at all. [ellipses in original]
I find the term “spirituality” to be too generic and vague but the point is well taken and I take it to the point of arguing that the bible is the Most anti-religion book ever written and note that he is right, right after the Bible stated it, in criticizing those “who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1st Timothy 6:3-5) see False Teachers Reveal Truth.
Ricky Gervais continues:
You know, I live by… I live by Christian values, I suppose. You know, I live by… or any religious values that preaches forgiveness and, you know, do as you would be done by and… you know. I just do it for different reasons. I do it because I think this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it and be part of it and celebrate it and be nice to everyone ‘cause we’re… we’re animals, we need to be loved and lead a decent life. So, yeah. If you believe in God and that gets you through and it makes you a nicer person, then… then so be it. But I just… I just… I don’t believe. And I feel sometimes that atheists, and I’m an atheist, not agnostic, one of the few things I’m sure of in life, I think they get a bad [press] that we take the art out of beauty in the world, which is not true. [ellipses in original]
Why elevate the “religious values that preaches forgiveness”? I suspect that it is because his soul knows that which he dismisses as that which he cannot “see” and is “overwhelming.”
It is also because atheism offers no such thing. In fact, if he is much like the average bear then he has wronged very many people; some whom he has surely forgotten, some whom he could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive him, some who have died, etc. Thus, seeks transcendent forgiveness because on atheism will remain unforgiven.
Also, whence comes the imperatives, “I should… I should”? Such sentiments are very common atheist talking points but they are non-sequiturs. For example, “this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it and be part of it and celebrate it and be nice to everyone ‘cause we’re… we’re animals.” Could just as easily read, “this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it by doing whatever I want to whomever I want anytime, anyplace ‘cause we’re… we’re animals.”
And atheism has not one thing to say about it either way.
Also, what is logical and scientific about, “I just… I just… I don’t believe”?
He further states,
The fact the, you know, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and, you know, the 4 million species of animal and… and they’ve evolved by accident is, I think, more beautiful than any intelligent design [that could claim].
Again, what is logical and scientific about beautiful (a subjective standard) accident?
He was also asked “Do your beliefs affect your comedy?” and he responded, “No, I’m just being honest, you know.” Yet, from his children’s books to his movies and TV shows; his atheism comes through loud and clear.
Consider Flanimals: Atheists Continue Attempting to Propagandize Kids—Theirs and Yours.
Or, consider that his movie The Invention of Lying has been termed, “‘Bruce Almighty’ for atheists.”
Or, consider the blatant and exclusive anti-Christian prejudice in the show The Office: Atheism and Christianity at the office, part 1 of 2.
Consider what Ricky Gervais had to say about The Invention of Lying:
I think the reason why critics and websites didn’t like it was obviously the religious element. I think some people felt cheated that they weren’t warned. But I don’t know what you do with that. Whether I should put a warning ‘contains atheist material’. I don’t know. Strange, really… this is one film that dares to presume the lack of God…I don’t think it is atheist propaganda…as an atheist, to suggest I believe that religion was started by man. And I put that in a film. I’d be a hypocrite to say anything else…
I make this for me and like minded people…do it for yourself and like minded people [here, he is referencing all of his work in general].3
See? The movie merely “dares to presume the lack of God.” As for “religion” being “started by man,” I, and God, could not agree more.
But is this just an innocent movie that merely “dares to presume the lack of God”?
Consider the review by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith from his article, Ricky Gervais Takes on Christianity, September 28, 2009:
The movie is a full-on attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. It might be the most blatantly, one-sidedly atheist movie ever released by a major studio, in this case Warner Bros.
Gervais delights in what a faith-based society would call blasphemy, setting up an imaginary world in which no one ever lies. Except his character, who spreads what Gervais obviously sees as the biggest lie of all: Belief in God.
Gervais’s character is the first man ever to think of lying. In order to comfort the dying, he randomly hits on the idea of telling them that they will go to a better place and enjoy an afterlife. Citizens who automatically believe what they’re told (since no one, even advertisers, has ever told an untruth) start to spread the word, and soon Gervais is doing a gruesomely unfunny parody of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Except his rules are ten lies written on pizza boxes.
Gervais sighs and winces as he spins his absurd made-up stories to the ignorant peoples of the world: There is a “Man in the Sky,” he says, who is looking down at all of us and is responsible for everything that happens. Yes, he explains to one woman, he gave your mom cancer — but he’s also responsible for curing her. The people aren’t happy that “The Man in the Sky” is behind all human suffering. “F— The Man in the Sky!” cries one citizen, and the crowd begins to get angry. A magazine cover exclaims, “Man in the Sky Kills 40,000 in Tsunami!”
But Gervais’s character insists that whatever damage the Man in the Sky causes, he eventually makes up for it all in the end by providing a beautiful mansion for everyone after they die, at least for those who don’t commit three or more immoral acts, and by making it so that everyone can reunite with their loved ones in the next life. Later in the movie, Gervais will be outfitted like Jesus.
The movie doesn’t have a joke to offer at this point; it just thinks it’s funny to show Gervais in long hair and a bedsheet. At the end, in a church, a minister is seen wearing a cross, so apparently somehow the Gervais character also came up with the Crucifixion story.
Gervais is an atheist, which is fine, but his mean-spiritedness (even before the atheism theme enters the movie, it’s sour and misanthropic) and the film’s reduction of all religion to an episode of crowd hysteria are not going to be warmly received. Except maybe by critics.
Merely “dares to presume the lack of God”? No.
Do his beliefs affect his comedy? Yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.