TED Conversations

MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL -WARSAW / POLAND

This conversation is closed.

Atheists also beleive.

If one analyses a lion; its teeth, its paws, its strength etc. s/he would understand that it is wild beast that wouldnot prefer eating leaves or vegetables. It would be obvious that this type of an animal prefers hunting bloody meat.
If one analyses a car; its engines, its pipes etc. s/he would understand that a car will not be able to work with water or coke.
If the same analyses a person;its inner world, s/he would take in that this creature is structured to believe in something; Ancient Greeks beleived in gods(Zeus,Paseidon...),middle age arabs to Lutta,Uzza..., Buddists to Dyo,Catholics to God,Orthodoxs to Bog,Muslims to Allah, Satanists to satan and atheists beleive that the Creator doesnot exist.
It would be paradoxical but Atheists also do beleive.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 26 2012: Just because we are susceptible to delusion, does not lend those delusions any validity. As our intellect was growing, we looked for answers that we were not capable of providing for ourselves. In the frustration of facing our own ignorance, we invented supernatural beings that we could praise or blame for the natural processes around us.

    Atheism is the act of looking toward evidence and logic to answer questions, as opposed to using superstition and fairy tales.

    Saying that an Atheist is a "believer" is the same as saying that someone who doesn't collect stamps is still a hobbyist. To say that it requires a "belief system" in order to disregard nonsensical fairy tales because there is no evidence to support any of the concepts just goes to show how desperate you are to try to create some equilibrium between delusional superstitions and rational thought.
    • thumb
      Jan 26 2012: 'As our intellect was growing, we looked for answers that we were not capable of providing for ourselves. '

      Let us also not forget that almost every believer in existence is one through indoctrination rather than a personal thought-process which led to that conclusion.
      So its not even 'people' looking for answers, rather, several people hundreds of years earlier.

      One side of my family were originally all catholics, but as one member of the family found out when creating a family tree --Everyone born into the family were 'catholics' solely by birth. We then later found that we could pinpoint the person who introduced the religion to the family.
      It was simply 1 man who came into the family as a catholic, convinced his wife to be one aswell and then had 7 children, raising all of them as catholics aswell, and thats what led to that part of the family all being catholics a number of generations later.

      Apparently divine truth relies on convincing four year olds to continue its message..
    • thumb
      Jan 27 2012: Hi Keith.
      "Saying that an Atheist is a "believer" is the same as saying that someone who doesn't collect stamps is still a hobbyist. "
      You have a point. However Atheism pretty much obliges one to be a materialist. You must believe that everything originated from a material source without any immaterial assistance. That requires faith.

      :-)
      • Jan 27 2012: I'm sorry, but do you even know what the word "faith" means? Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof" or "belief and trust in and loyalty to God". Nope, neither definition describes when I see ore mined from rock, then smelted and formed into iron and then forged into steel, how I "believe" that the steel that I am using comes from the earth and not some magic fairy.

        Unlike theist, rationally minded people actually accept that there are things we don't know. How did the universe begin? We don't know. The problem for you is that, just because I don't know, doesn't automatically prove that any crazy story that you make up is true.

        I know that theists like to try to say that atheist have "beliefs" and "faith" in order to try to put us on the same footing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Theists believe in their fairy tales DESPITE all the evidence against the truth of those delusions. Atheists' "beliefs" (if you MUST call them that) are based solely on evidence, not the lack thereof or to the contrary.

        Here's an exercise: You explain to me how all other religions are invalid except for yours (WITHOUT simply saying the bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and if the bible says so it must be true because it's the word of god. Circular reasoning is not allowed.). Once you have explained and proven why all other religions are invalid except yours, I will use that same reasoning to explain why yours is just as invalid as all the rest. How does that sound?
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2012: Hi Keith

          "Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof""
          You believe that the universe was made without intelligent input; that requires faith as it cannot be proven.

          I do not engage in debate with advocates of sky fairies, teapots, etc., it would be a waste of my time.

          :-)
      • Jan 27 2012: I'm betting that you think evolution is "just a theory", too, right? That's because you make the same mistake with the word "theory" as you are making with "belief". The Scientific Theory of Evolution strives to explain how the Scientific Fact of Evolution occurs. This is not at all the same as the "theory" (i.e. an abstract thought or speculation) that some magic sky fairy "created" everything on a whim. You will say that something cannot come out of nothing, so therefore the Big Bang is wrong. But on the other hand, you will claim that god made everything out of nothing, which is completely rational (to you). However, even if there was some supernatural invisible pink unicorn that waved it horn and magiced everything into existence, that in no way lends any credence to YOUR version of any sky fairy. You can't claim that yours is the first delusional superstition that came up with a creation myth and yours is certainly no more valid than any other fairy tale.

        All in all, your argument is just a childish attempt to say that your "beliefs" with no evidence at all except at best circumstantial evidence, but what is really just speculation on your part, are just as valid as my "lack of belief" (which stems specifically from observable evidence), which just doesn't hold any water at all.
      • Jan 28 2012: You are right but the point I am driving to is that humanity is intrinsically functioned or structured to beleive in Something. In other words, there is an ultimate truth laying beyond our minds which we humanity throughout centuries are seeking for it.
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2012: Partially agree. We do seem to seek understanding. We do develop world views or paradigms to make sense of life the universe and everything. I suggest this is an evolutionary outcome that has helped make a very successful species. Our beliefs about the universe have been enriched by science and culture, our language and writing ability to pass stories and knowledge from one generation to another.

          Of course we also tend to think the universe revolves around us. That it was created specifically for us, even though most of it is light years away and redundant. Our tendency to take an anthropological view point can also be explained by science.

          Agree the religious meme is sticky and widespread.

          It is a great leap from observing that religious belief is very common to suggesting there is some absolute truth or god we can barely comprehend. Perhaps the absolute truth is none of the theist views got it right. But there is a chance you are correct just like any other extravagant claim that can not be proven one way or the other.

          Language is also widespread. Perhaps there is an ultimate language or method of communication that we have been seeking for centuries.
      • Jan 28 2012: I'm an atheist. Just to be clear, as many seem to be confused by that label, that means I do not believe that any god or gods actually exist; and, it does not mean that I believe that no god(s) actually exist.

        I'm not a materialist. I do not believe that everything is ultimately composed of some sort of substantial stuff. I care not for the atoms of Democritus, corpuscles, "particles", super strings, or lego blocks. I find the materialist notion that things are made of substantial entities unfounded. Every time we think we found matter... it turns out that it wasn't matter at all; rather, the activity of some unknown stuff that we then considered to be the ultimate matter of things.

        I'm an act of organs which are acts of tissues... cells... organelles... molecules... atoms... subatomic phenomena. Some subatomic phenomena are acts of other subatomic phenomena. We don't know much about those 'elementary' subatomic phenomena. We do know that they are accurately described as 'quanta of energy' which is a scientific way of saying 'discrete packets of measurable activity' which is a verbose way of saying 'acts'. I detect no hint of any 'matter' composing any of this.

        I don't believe in 'spiritual' matter either.

        In any case, atheism does not equate to materialism.
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2012: Hi Robert.

          Sorry for stereotyping you, I was speaking from personal experience, but of course there will be exceptions. Very refreshing, pleased to meet you.

          :-)
      • Jan 28 2012: @Peter Law - ""Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof""
        You believe that the universe was made without intelligent input; that requires faith as it cannot be proven."

        Let's look at how logic works: The "belief" that there was "intelligent input" of the creation of the universe is an assertion, and an exceptional one at that. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof lies on YOU to provide evidence, not me to provide evidence that any delusional superstition that you come up with is invalid. My lack of buying into your crazy fairy tales does not constitute a "belief", it is actually a "LACK OF BELIEF". Since, as you point out, "belief is not proof" (the only thing you've been right about so far, as far as I can tell), you have no PROOF or even EVIDENCE that your assertion have any validity.

        "I do not engage in debate with advocates of sky fairies, teapots, etc., it would be a waste of my time."

        Ironic, since you are the one that is an advocate for your particular brand of fairy tales. Also ironic, since you felt the need to engage in this conversation, but at the very end declared that you "refuse to engage". Too funny!!!
      • Jan 28 2012: @Davut Hydyrov: "Two things; 1) How come that you leave such a perfectly designed universe to hands of coincidences."

        First, where does your assertion come from that there is "perfect design"? I assert that nature is just that: nature. Why do you feel the need to add a "designer" to it? Second, even if there were "perfect design", why does there have to be intelligence behind it? And third, even if there is some sort of intelligence behind the creation of the universe, what is your proof that your sky fairy MUST be the only valid source of that intelligence? Just because you can't imagine that the universe didn't have intelligence behind the creation, does not make it a fact that there must have been. You are the one making the assertion, please provide empirical, examinable proof that your assertion is the only valid one.

        "2) I would give you consent, if you manage to surmount the phenomenon which from the very beginning perpetually bothers humanity- DEATH. Atheism doesnot offer anything to sooth humanity..."

        I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but I believe that you are basically saying that you feel the desperate need to have an afterlife and, since atheism professes that there is no afterlife, you think that makes atheism somehow "invalid". First, let's talk about the burden of proof. You claim that you believe there is an afterlife, and I say that I refuse to accept your claim. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there IS an afterlife, not on me to prove why I don't accept your assertion. You "feeling better" by believing in an afterlife does not provide evidence, not even circumstantial evidence, that such a condition exists. It is merely speculation.

        As Peter Law clearly points out, "belief is not proof." My refusal to accept your assertion is not a "belief", indeed it is a "lack of belief." You are the one making the assertion, it is up to you to provide proof of it's validity.
    • Comment deleted

      • Jan 28 2012: 1. I didn't leave the design of the universe to coincidences. I wasn't around. If it were perfectly designed for us then the designer has the worst sense of economy conceivable. Why did he need to create trillions upon trillions of stars separated by many lightyears in order to accommodate what fails to amount to a speck of dust in comparison that we are all clinging onto. Given such vast magnitudes of space and time you don't need intellect for chance events to produce interesting or even 'miraculous' seeming effects. Once you get replicators replicating themselves with some variation and living or dying based on conditions in their habitat, and enough time, you don't need a designer of minds.

        2. "Although very religious people fear death the least, studies suggest, total unbelievers take second place for ability to take their mortality in stride. The worst death anxieties haunt those who lie somewhere in between those extremes—who are a little religious."
        Cited from: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm

        Unless you are a religious zealot, I probably fear death less than you do. That doesn't surprise me since I don't fear death. I want to avoid it for now, sure. Am I certain of what will happen when I die? No. Most likely I shall simple cease to be. I find that much preferable to getting rewarded for venerating one who would damn me to eternal torture for not believing in or venerating them. I would find even eternal torment preferable to believing in and venerating such a villain.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.