Mitchell and Webb: Does God Exist?
Mitchell and Webb Does God Exist

Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram

Comments

Luke Alexander : —Well, there is no yes-or-no answer. —What! I can think of two yes-or-no answers, just off the top of my head! This is brilliant!

David Axelord : If only someone could cut into a piece of fruit and answer this question once and for all...

Kasey Escape : last line is brilliant

Bennings : This perfectly sums up religious debates on the internet

John Doe : Brilliant sketch. Too bad those in the comment section didn't quite get the point.

B. Hagedash : Are agnostics spineless fence sitters? I couldn't say.

Stephen Wright : pretty hilarious that people are actually arguing does god exist underneath this comedy sketch video...

partyvegetarian : "I can think of two yes or no answers of the top of my head!" ... that line has stuck with me for years. Waiting for the perfect moment to deploy it...

vonteflon : 1:08 Johnson!

Chrisfs : I was about to comment, but then realized the comments thread are an amazing extension of the sketch itself. Mitchell and Webb and not simply awesome, they are META-AWESOME!

fishyc150 : It certainly is a yes/no answer. It's that people don't know the answer.

Tim Lake : I love using that response to "There is no yes or no answer". Good one to break out in meetings, along with "Oh make the tea!" when someone just sits on the fence.

Chris Morris : Raymond could have easily cast deciding vote but I guess that would be less fun ;) xD

sirprintalot : OSCAR WINNER Danielle

David Eberhardt : Love Robert Webb, but this part should have gone to Chris Morris.

Mantis Toboggan : this question was answered by a melon in another sketch of theirs.

Joachim Schoder : Yes/No-question #1: Are you mental?

MrShepperson : Nicky Campbell take note...

punchultimate : I've already wasted enough time saying balalaika when drum would do!

Griffin : Olivia Coleman’s come a long way... 😂

Stickfigure Productions : Saturday Night Live did a similar sketch with Diana Carvey.

James Lawson Animates : IT'S IM-POR-TANT!

William Macey : One of them has an Academy Award now

UberOcelot : Well, one of the yes or no answers is yes. But what's the other one?

Pat K : Johnson!

Adam Mangler : ... one minute and 27 seconds - that's longer than anyone should spend on the question :0)

MOONFLOW : Ah, a humorous and thoughtful commentary on the Media's superficial willingness to interrogate life's biggest questions in a short-form television enactment.

wishingwell12345 : Oh make the tea!

S Taylor : DO NOT SHOW YOUR WORKING!!!! 🙌🏻

Josh O'Brien : "OH MAKE THE TEA!" Correct response to agnostics.

Stuart Gibbons : "Come on guys, it's important!"

Alex S : The default position is to assume nothing, isn't it? A neutral position is non-belief. Which is exactly what atheism is. Holding zero beliefs in the either god claims: for it (theism) or against it (anti-theism). Theist: I accept there is a god. Atheist: I don't accept that through doubt (disbelief) Anti-theist (strong atheist): I don't accept that and also make a further proposal: I believe a god doesn't exist

Alex S : I'd do some research, then. Perhaps start with epistemology ;). Also, look up positive and negative atheism. There are various definitions of agnosticism, and the one used as an "intellectual" position, is relatively useless. You can be a theist and an agnostic, because to claim not to know if there is a god or not constitutes agnosticism. However, you may still believe in a god. One talks about knowledge, and the other belief.

Chizbo : The whole theist/agnostic/atheist dichotomy is so confused and undescriptive that it leads to more argument than illumination. Part of the problem is that it's defined from the vantage point of a religious society. It doesn't really make much sense from a scientific point of view either, where you generally assume something doesn't exist as the default. You don't just start off at 50:50. That leads to madness.

shadshowadradna : Agnostic atheism is a qualification of atheism, not of agnosticism. Atheism is about the rejection of theism, but some atheists simply don't believe that gods exist while others actively believe that gods don't exist. The former sometimes call themselves agnostic atheists, presumably to distance themselves from the intellectually bankrupt latter.

shadshowadradna : Agnostics believe that gods could exist without us knowing about them. They believe that if you don't know what a god is, you can't identify evidence for or against the existence of gods. Agnostics have chosen therefore not to make such a ridiculous, baseless decision. The idea that you have to be either an agnostic theist (whatever that is) or an agnostic atheist is laughable to an agnostic.

daft wod : shoot me down like the ignorant scum i am but surely an agnostic is somebody who has not made a decision either way.. which is exactly what they said!?

Professional Bob : But they weren't wrong...

TheMightyForeskin : I cannot see how a person who has sufficient knowledge about the claims of theism but still refuses to pray, worship etc. and does not claim the existence of a theistic God can be anything other than an agnostic atheist. Sure, you can state you are wholly ignorant and have no idea about it, but doesn't that, by definition, mean you are without theism; aka a-theist? Agnosticism cannot exist by its lonesome, and is the main fallacy of Mitchell & Webb's (otherwise brilliant) thinking.

TheMightyForeskin : An agnostic what? You can't just be an agnostic, you're either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist (or gnostic theist/gnostic atheist). The former ((a)gnosticism) measures knowledge whilst the latter ((a)theism) states belief. You can't just be an agnostic. Most people that state they're agnostics are without theism - aka a-theist - since they neither pray, worship any god nor abide by theistic dogma. Here's a handy chart: imgur DOT com/d8DqLzc

Bradley Halliwell : But... they got it right? Mitchell is an Agnostic himself anyway.

BlitzTankTV : mitchel and webb should learn the difference between agnostic and atheist before making any more religion sketches

Alex S : The human mind doesn't work any differently to holding a belief and not holding one.

Alex S : Definition of reject: "To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of." "I refuse to accept your claim until more evidence is obtained". You can word it whatever way you like, it all means the same thing. You reject the claim at this time.

Alex S : Theist: "I believe there is a god!" Atheist: "I reject that claim until evidence is posed to me." Anti-theist: "I reject that claim and also make another -- I believe there isn't a god!"

Alex S : It's based on belief. The yes or no is whether you hold a belief in your head. It is either in your head or not in your head. You hold a belief or lack one. Only two options in that regard.

Alex S : Because withholding judgement = non acceptance. Look up the definition of rejection and get back to me. There are only two options, I'm afraid (other than non-cognizance, but that's not applicable here). The thing is, rejection is often a misunderstood word, it's often seen as dogmatic. But, instead, use the word "doubt" when told a claim. Doubting something means you have not accepted it, which is exactly what rejection is. It's just a semantics issue.

Manic 8-Ball : The final truth about whether or not there is a god (or there are gods) is a yes or no question. That does not mean that everyone MUST have a yes or no answer, if for no other reason than any given individual might not have enough data to make a yes or no decision. You seem to think that one needs to be binary in one's decision making process…this is simply not the case, at least not with many humans.

Manic 8-Ball : Why do you think that to withhold judgment is the same as rejection? You, personally, might only be able to see things in terms of acceptance and rejection, but I would suggest that humans don't actually need to be so binary.