TED Conversations

Christian Howardson

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Religion and Atheism

Here's my take on an "Atheism 2.0" - all quotes are for emphasis:

Imagine a continuum; on the left side is a 100% conviction that a god(s)/afterlife do not exist, and on the right is a 100% conviction that a god(s)/afterlife is real. In the middle of this continuum, 0%, is a conviction that a lack OR presence of a god(s)/afterlife are on equal terms.

-100%--------------------------0%---------------------------100%

Believe in a god(s)/afterlife? If so, where do you think he (it?) resides on the above mentioned continuum? Why? As a point of reference, where do you think the existance of the toothfairy falls on this continuum?

Now, while my own personal opinion might be that the existence of a god(s) and/or afterlife (especially the one depicted in any of the three desert dogmas) are of extremely low odds (say, 99% for does not exist) and are not worth adopting as real, the important thing is that I am not absolutist in my point of view, because it is unprovable, even if only technically unprovable (ya can't bring back evidence of nothingness, can you?).

In my opinion, the "thoughtform" of the future is one were people do not claim an absolutist stance on impossible to prove concepts such as these. Arguing whether a god does or does not exist is pointless. Fighting over which god is or isn't a true god only leads to war. It's possible that the most humble and honest position is one of uncertainty. Imagine if everyone would just concede that they really just didn't know...might be a lot more peaceful world.

Also, the terms "atheist" and "believer" should probably be removed from our vocabulary. Not only have these terms been evacuated of any substantive meaning, but they've become words regularly used to express contempt or ridicule, which makes people defensive, and basically blocks any hope for open communication regarding the greatest mysteries of the universe.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 25 2012: The term "atheist" is certainly one that I find objectionable. Not because I shy away from any stigma that some may attach to it, but because its very existence implies that belief in a god is somehow the norm. There is no word for people who do not believe in the tooth fairy.
    • Jan 25 2012: but because its very existence implies that belief in a god is somehow the norm.


      Because it IS the norm.
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2012: Ethan, you are right. Sloppy thinking on my part.

        The term "atheist" implies that belief in a god is some sort of default setting. Which i would dispute.
    • Jan 25 2012: How engenuous of you to view the term atheist like that.

      Is a loving person ruthfull?

      This duction of entomology seems interesting to me.

      I hope my tax refund conds on time.

      Vert your eyes to these words.

      I suppose being cancer free or pain free must be negative states since they are modified by the negative word 'free'. Or is it just negative prefixes or suffixes that turn a word into something bad.
    • Jan 30 2012: I'm thinking they should relabel the terms atheist and theist with the new official terms non-theist and pro-theist. That way, instead of suggesting a negative and a neutral, they would suggest a 'not' and a 'for'... might be linguistically fairer that way. Quick someone tell Webster.

      Or wait, how about they take the inverse polarity of theist and switch it with the multiplexed isotope of..... ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....man, if not for the dark ages, rather than sitting here pushing back against this tide of hysteria, I'd be slam dunking on the moon. right. now. boomgoesthedynamite.

      http://youtu.be/W45DRy7M1no

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.