TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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.


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.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 26 2012: Well, if we are talking about the abrahamic religions, we must examine the "holy books" that they are based in. With all books of the bible (old testament, new testament, and the book of mormon), each having hundreds of contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and flat out lies, we MUST assume that the religion is 100% false, since every assertion that they claim can be disproved. Are any of them based on the existence of a "real" supernatural being that was just so inept that it was unable to communicate its message to humanity in any meaningful way? I would have to put my vote at about the -99.999% area. As for any other religion, I think odds are that they are just as fallacious. After all, if any were the "perfect word of their god", they would actually be able to stand up to scrutiny. Since none have ever produced any evidence that they are valid, we can only assume that there has never been a valid religion. Does that mean there are no supernatural being that are in "existence"? Well, no, but then, as you point out, there is no way to prove a negative. But, since there is no evidence of their existence, we can only assume that they fall into the category of the invisible pink unicorn. There is no reason to believe any crazy hypothesis without having at least same evidence to it's validity and only as long as there is no evidence contradicting its validity.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.