TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY...I BELIEVE...I BELIEVE YOU...I BELIEVE IT. What does one actually mean when saying this?

That one thinks? That one did not think at all and just accepted the ideas imposed on them? That one does not doubt that your words correspond to your conviction? That one can believe the sincerity of your testimony however doubt its content? That one has no doubt that this event took place like you describe it? That for an illusory comfort one has chosen the death of one's brain?

Inspired by Albert Jacquard and his book "Dieu?"- "God?"- I find myself posing these questions not for the purpose of mocking anyone but to try and understand what is still so alien to me.

This debate was originally started in French so bear with me while is being translated faithfully.

Qu'est-ce qu'on veut dire quand on dit ça?
Que je pense? Ou que je n'ai pensé rien de rien, j'ai seulement accepté les idées imposées? Que je ne mets pas en doute que vos paroles correspondent à votre conviction? Que je peux croire à la sincérité de votre témoin et ne pas croire le contenu de votre témoignage? Que je ne mets pas en doute que cet événement s'est déroulé comme vous les dites? Que par le confort illusoire je choisis le décès de mon cerveau?

Inspirée par Albert Jacquard et son livre 'Dieu?' je me demande ces questions et je voudrais savoir si quelqu'un veut partager avec moi son avis sur ça.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 23 2011: Hey,

    I can't translate french, but get general idea. The statement you related is not in the Bible. It is a part of the "Apostles Creed.." Which the Church some time ago manufactured out of what 'they believed' was a statement of what the original Apostles believed. The reason for this is when Christianity began, it flourished quickly. There were misconceptions such as "they drink bood and eat people.." Statements were developed to make strong statements that were meant to give a siingular definiton that was widely held, etc. to make sure people understood the rumors were just that, rumors.

    I work a lot with teenagers. I don't fight about the concept of God existing or not. I move the conversation to one of Spirituality. That something larger than us exists in nature and in us... Proofs are nature, our natural inclination to fight our more carnal natures, our sense that we would be happiest if we reached our highest potential, etc.

    One last note is "Ontological Arguments." Which I use to illustrate that nature could not have fallen into place.. I use a variation of the "Watch Maker.' I as.. "if I took you cell phone apart, down to its smallest piece.. placed it in a bag.. how many times would I have to shake it before it came back together?"

    I place alot of these types of questions into "I'll find out when I die (for sure what the answer is)." If I get up there and still care to ask, I will. Most likely I will want to find an old friend to play chess with.. :)

    Thanks for the interesting topic.

    • Jun 25 2011: Your argument of cell phone is generally used against atheist , but "Which Maker " hmmm ?
      My point is ( without hurting anyone's feeling ) "how many " , I mean if there are more than 1 ,like 1 to "the right hand " of another , than there will be dispute , One will want to make a tree , but the other want to replace it, because both of them are Almighty and Powerful , in that case there will be chaos.
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2011: Hi Neil,

      I'm not sure we are on the same track here.

      Since words seem to have great power I'm inviting people to reflect upon these, in particular those who constantly repeat them. Me making reference to the Apostles Creed is just one way of introducing my qualm about how religion leads people blindly and as a consequence many conflicts have arised.
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2011: Hey Neil and many of the points I wanted to make as well

      Helena.. My conversation now closed, have we outgrown our belief systems ( http://www.ted.com/conversations/3357/what_are_the_limitations_on_fr.html )is I think to the same point you are raising and we covered a lot of good ground there

      "Belief systems" belong not just to parctioners in the major faiths who recite the apostles creed every week..it belongs as well to the self described atheists, to all of us who blindly and uncritically collect and build beleif systems. Perhaps as much or more actual harm comes to the world and to others from the" non-religious" belief systemswhich do are not based on a core notion of love and awareness of others

      .I haven't written my conclusion yet but where we came to in that discussion is that all of us, atheists included, have "belief systems" at work in our lives in all kinds of ways some of which might not be worth keeping and harmful for us and others to act upon. That all of us need to awaken to the presence of our own internal belief systems ..unpack all that ..lay it out on the table and make knowing conscious choices about what we want to keep and what we want to throw away

      .Wise man Tom Atlee who posted said it most beautifully and I point all who are interested in this converation to read what he said there. In essence he said we should be contsantly mindful of what our own "belief systems" are. think critically about the, and choose to keep and grow towards what serves life, what serves humanity

      .Albert Einstein said essentially the same things in his essay on Science and Religion. Essentially he said, as I have said here, that "religion: " includes more than what points to or aseserts the existence of any god orgods..that "religion" in its purest form is what expresses humanity..that part of us that is about "humanity"..that part of us that expresses and seeks morality, social and economic justice, truth, wisdom...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.