Real

He once said religion is an imaginary friend. I'm going to go on a limb and say he thinks believers and dumb. He's gone waaay over the line.
And even if you don't believe in religion, so what? This guy is taking advantage of his position as a celebrity to basically be a bully.

I don't know the context so I can't say, but by itself it doesn't sound that bad. Many people turn to religion when they seek companionship or support, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I fully agree with the "so what" part. Yet there are many places around the world, even in the western world (*coughs* Texas *coughs*) where there is an obvious bias against non-believers (specifically non-Christians in this case). Did you know it's still written in some states' law books that atheists can't run for office? Of course it's not valid because federal laws state otherwise but the fact that this stuff is still in those books is concerning. Not to mention the punishment for atheism is beheading in Saudi Arabia. Personally I am 100% "so what" on the issue of religion as long as people don't try to force it upon others. And forcing atheism upon others is just as wrong imo. Nothing wrong with having a discussion about religion/atheism though.

Oi, don't you be hatin' on Texas, we may look like a buncha hicks, but we're more enlightened than we get credit for.

Yeah dude, and you've got a NASA Space Center which is awesome. Science rules. I didn't mean to hate on Texas, it was supposed to be a stereotype that would demonstrate my point. Many people imagine Bible-thumping rednecks when they hear "Texas" or "southern states" which I meant as a demonstration of the fact that religious fundamentalism doesn't only exist in the third world.

It is certainly much more prevalent in the third world, however, and to equate the religious fundamentalism of the third world with that of America is incredibly disingenuous.

That's why I specifically gave examples. Nobody's dumb enough to think that I said it's the same when I gave the example of a beheading versus an unused law.

Fair enough. I don't care if someone criticizes my religion, as long as they criticize all religions equally.

Indeed. And I don't care if someone is religious, as long as they don't try to forcefully impose it on other people or the state.

But this guy is obviously targeting Christianity, Judaism, and Islam specifically because they are the most prevalent monotheistic religions today.

Well obviously, if you want to make a thought-provoking point then it would make no sense to target Zoroastrianism because not that many people know it and therefore not that many people would even get your point. Likewise, if you want to criticize modern music you criticize Minaj or Biebs, not some unknown rapper, because more people know what you're talking aboot.

oooor you could be adult and say people have different beliefs and that's cool

Hey man, as long as you let me believe what I want and let me do what I want with my life, we won't have a problem. It only becomes a problem when you try to stop me.

People have different belifs which is cool BUT some people try very hard to impose their beliefs onto others, which should be targeted. He's a comedian ffs, when he makes fun of people who try to force their religion onto others, making fun of said religion is "collareral damage".
And even then, what's wrong with disagreeing with (some parts of) religion? As long as you keep it a civil debate, there is no issue.

Bear in mind that forcing your beliefs on someone is different than convincing them to think your way, which is fine. Proselytizing is fine, threatening them with death is not.

Yes which is why I wrote it's okay to disagree with religion, it's also okay to agree with religion. You're 100% entitled to your opinions as long as you can properly defend them with good arguments. But also telling someone to stop doing something because it's against your beliefs is wrong too (or at least hella annoying) because it's their lifestyle, not yours. Again you can disagree with their lifestyle all you want but you have to accept the fact that it's within their freedom to live a certain way (unless it's illegal of course)

What is an "agnostic or something"?

To my knowledge, an agnostic is someone who is unsure of the existence of God, or wants to believe, or has unorthodox beliefs on God.

I think there's a God but not for a single second to I beleive that we are the apple of His eye.

Not really
I'm pretty sure there is something
Cause the idea of the whole multi universes all going without actually control is very terrifying

Ahh agnostic, when your atheist but want to hedge your bets.

Multiverse is a fact, not idea. And it basically says there are trillions of universes with all sorts of god.

Eh, slow your roll. Multiverse is a theory. The math backs it up, but until we travel to one of these other universes, there's no way to know for a fact that other universes exist.

You don't understand. I'm talking about the timeless existance in everything there is that has no beginning and no end. In that forever existance everything has happened. Cause it's there since forever. It has no limitations of "can't happen" ... Everything already happened. Multiverse is A MUST. Doubting it is stupid

Because using the word "stupid" always makes you sound smart...

I have no problem with atheists. Who said that? I have a problem with people who disrespect others beliefs (like trustnthmulder)

I don't hate"men of faith" as well. I'm just saying... what gervais is saying. Your option is just an option! You must accept a fact that it simply could be unreal. Like trustnthnmulder guy does. I say there definitely could be god but I also say there is an option there's not a chance of god. Which ever is the truth I don't care. Believers exclude both options. There's only one option for them. And that's pretty much fanatic enough for me. If someone"attacks" first by saying there's no both options isn't he disrespecting me?

Not really. It all depends on how he approaches the situation. If you ask me, anyone who honestly believes that there is an afterlife, and that the only way to avoid eternal torture is to believe in a certain way, and then they don't proselytize, that's kind of a dick move.

Truthnthmulder...the word you're looking for is "opinion" not "option". If you're going to disparage beliefs at least speak properly

No, I meant option. We may, theoretically, live in universe in which there is god, or in one where it's not even plausible. Not both. Because we cannot prove neither, we choose one of the options. @chakun, point is I say in altogether unmeasurable everithingness, there MUST be both options( essentialy ALL the options) but not at the same time (in our "current" universe). Since we cannot know for sure, or prove neither, I, trustnthnmulder guy, say I'm not sure which one is it. It could be any of those. Religious people don't even wanna talk about could it be other option. That's fanaticism.

And @chakun, We DO live in a world we couldn't believe will ever come to be. Ten years ago or so... Ten years ago I couldn't dream that a buddhist monk, one of the most peacefull religion, that shouldn't care about stuff, would call for burning muslims alive in indochina, because their beliefs don't coincide. He is a preacher, that means he preaches. Everyone with access to public preaching of whatever, even us here, should carefully choose words, let alone heads of religion,which btw shouldn't care of sucha things cause it's dealing in absolutes And it's peacefull. He as a preacher should know that. What's left to his"flock", what's left to more unpeacefull religions? And fanatics.

Personally I, a religious believer, do not believe there are only two options. I believe in both God and science. I believe every religion has merit. Reasoning? There is no way to prove any of those possibilities false. Just like we can't prove anything right, we can't prove it wrong either. And people of all religions claim to have personal evidence of their beliefs so who are we to say it's not "real"?
So no, there are not only two options and you can't speak for all religious people

You are repeating what I say @jmvail except you missunderstand. I'm not talking about believing in god OR science. I'm telling you "In timeless everythingness of "being"(a philosophical term) everything already happened. Every scenario. Imaginable or unimaginable. There are parts of that everythingness,arguable if we should call them universes, cause they could last less than a second and disappear and consisting of only single one "monade", parts of everythingness inside the nothingness where god COULD NOT HAPPEN. NEVER. And not being able to tell them apart, it might as well be This one we're now in. But not being able to tell them apart means it also could be the one with god (we can't prove or disprove).That's why I, smart guy, say Socratic "I know nothing", could be either (but not both) I don't care, and you... say.. whatever you say."