TED Community » Isaac Wells

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 24 2011: I think I'd agree with what you've said Nicholas. Among the people that I am friends with, few would consciously accept themselves as part of a group. It seems that...a lot of people don't really think about these things though, so they unconsciously do so. Self-awareness would more or less get rid of all of that though.
  
  It is good for us to be proud of things, and more of it could be quite beneficial, so long as it doesn't make us look down on others who are different. So long as shared humanity always comes first, and a respect for the shared humanity. Some respect for yourself and your origins goes a long way towards improving your life, and sharing that with others definitely improves their lives as well.
  
  Thank you for your response Nicholas!

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: I apologize Nicholas, for any offense I caused. I don't mean to be offensive.
  
  I use paradigm to mean a way of viewing things. or the world. This may not be...strictly what the word means, though the meaning i've gathered seems to be that. Do correct me if I'm not quite right.
  
  Given that conception of paradigm, a paradigm is either an underlying assumption, or a question. And so both atheism and theism arise from the question 'Is there a God?', or potentially a different but similar question. And so, if that question is important to you, then think of yourself in terms of your answer. If not, then don't. I simply would guess that most or all that fall on the theist side would find it important, and that only some of those on the atheist side would (though that is a sort of simplistic view, that you are either one or the other, or I suppose agnostic, when it is probably more of a spectrum type thing). So no, I would not stop categorizing myself as religious, because that is important to me. And if you are non religious, and find that important about you, than categorize away! But if you aren't and it isn't, then...well, why? You can still, but why give something that isn't important that much emphasis in your head?
  
  I'm not for moving away from categories, though I do think we should be more...aware that to be accurate they probably need to be rather nuanced, and if they aren't then you'll be limited or restricted by them. It is good to be proud of who you are and how you are different. But it sounds silly to be proud of something that you don't care about.
  
  Did I manage to explain that clearly? The idea is applicable elsewhere, though it is hard to think of examples, just atheism is where I started thinking of it. One example could be that I'm part Czech. Until recently, that didn't matter to me, so I didn't think of myself as Czech. Now it has become important, so I do.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: That is a good point, though I think the amount of...importance the belief has in your life, and the level of conviction are perhaps important to consider. Because if you simply don't think there is a God, it seems not important to be in that paradigm, though the same goes for those that think there is a God, and then it has little effect on there life. For committed atheists, it does make sense to think of themselves as atheists. It seems just a matter of importance to you,
  
  Thank you for your contributions! They are helpful in developing my thoughts!

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: I quite like your thought, and feel, generally, very similarly.
  
  I don't know the meaning from the original Greek, so I can only assume that my conception of it corresponds to the present popular usage.
  
  I actually do believe in God, though I am for religion (though there can be, clearly, some notably bad effects), so I would use religious, though I can definitely understand the trouble trying to work around lacking words to use for non-religious and believing in God. I find it, too, quite annoying when people treat those who believe in God as stupid. Luckily it doesn't normally come up with me, because most people who know me know I am quite capable of thinking, but they think it of others, and attribute it to others. If those people are dumb it is for some underlying reason, not religion.
  
  I think I need to understand what Humanist means better, but I would be interested in using that word instead! Thank you for sharing.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: I don't mean to say that someone who doesn't believe in God has a particular, given worldview, philosophy, way of life, ideologies, norms or behaviour. If anything, to me, that makes my idea make more sense. If you are religious, I imagine that would be something you find significant about yourself, an important part of your view of the world. If you aren't religious, and your lack of religiousness is not something you find significant about yourself, then why treat it as significant. Of course, if your lack of religiousness is something you do find significant, than by all means, treat it like it is. Hopefully that is clear?
  
  I love a lot of Sam Harris's ideas, such as the idea of a science of morality, but I kind of dislike his views on religion. He wants to abolish it, as far as I can tell, but we really can't say whether or not any of them are true. What if they are? The questions, at least at present, fall outside of the realm that science can answer, as to the truthfullness of religion. Not to say that the things he opposes in religion (or different cultures for that matter) should not be opposed, such killing people, or oppression of women.
  
  I am good with the destruction of bad ideas and dogma, but the source of those are not religion. Sometimes they arise out of religion, but people with bad ideas, and who promote dogma, and whatever makes the people as such, is what is at fault. They can be like that regardless of religion. So I kind of don't like his views of atheism.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: I can't agree...again. I think that there is something else that does do this, and that would be a refusal to ask questions, an opposition to change, a fear of allowing other ideas to be thought and considered, to see if they are good or not. These come up often times in religious settings, but they are not a product of the religion, simply of people. I think it is associated with religion only because religious people have often been in power, and had those tendencies.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: I would agree that atheism doesn't really correspond to level of morality. Morality can arise from religion, but it arises from other places as well.
  
  I don't personally have a negative connotation of the word atheist. At my school, a lot of people, if they have any thoughts like this, think poorly of religious people because they view it as silly nonsense.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: 4. (specialist) I think I agree with your view of specialist. I mostly mean that we need to trust people to fill responsibilities in our lives/societies that require special training, and that we thus can't do ourselves. Even if they mostly know better what they don't know, they do actually have more understanding of a small part of how the world works than those not specialized in that area. And that is how they are able to do things like doctoring and other what not, while we can't.
  
  I too will now thank you! You give an interesting perspective, that helps me to think...further, and more deeply, about things. And I find what seems more similarities than differences in thought and opinion.

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: 3. (authority) I identify strongly with what you are saying. I tend to operate in the same way, taking people's ideas, though depending on who they are and my connection to them, I'd be inclined to sometimes consider things I would otherwise find...unlikely. I dislike package deals, which is why I hate politics, and the idea of a party system. What I mean by authority is...at some point, you have to trust someone else. We are all interconnected, and cannot do everything on our own. We let others grow our food, ship it, keep it safe till we consume it. We let others build our cars. We go to doctors. We have to rely and trust others to function. When it comes to religion, I trust some individuals to know more than me, and they make sense to me when they talk. The times when they don't...I do have trouble following them, but having at times tested what they said, and found it accurate, I've grown to trust what they say. And when I've got the belief that there is a God, that ultimately knows what is best for us, for those that receive instruction from Him, I feel that I can trust them not to lead me astray. Now, I do believe in scriptures, such as the Bible, and that they are...important sources of knowledge, but there are times when I have trouble with them, or at least the bible (I am LDS, so I also have what is called the Doctrine and Covenants, and also the Book of Mormon). I believe that, since these were all written by God, they might have mistakes. With all the translations and such of the Bible, it is particularly prone to...problems. But even for those things that I have trouble with initially, I can oftentimes find ways of thinking of them so that I don't anymore. It is the same case with science that seems to conflict with things said in my church. Usually, there is a way of resolving anything seemingly contradictory. Hopefully this is clear, and helps to make sense of what I think and believe?

• A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.

  Oct 23 2011: Limited characters is part of why I wasn't more detailed, and it might mean I need to do several posts.
  For clarity, numbers.
  1. (supernatural) My impression of the word supernatural is that, first, it assumes there are laws governing how the universe works (natural) and that there are things that go outside of those laws (supernatural). The thing is, the rules of the universe (or rules, patterns, other words might be...more appropriate) describe how everything works. So if something is outside of those, it doesn't have that consistency, or else it would be a part of that. So I'm left with God, who I believe is consistent, and how He works and functions, or the rules or patterns of His behaviour, being part of those laws. And to think otherwise would give any religion no basis in an independent, true reality, which then gets kind of fallacious, trying to say that it is reality, but saying that you can't understand it because it is outside of reality. That wasn't the clearest explanation, but I hope it was understandable. That is about how my thoughts go on that.
  
  2. (theory) I did not give an example of explanatory power, you are correct. That is something that, now that I consider it, is harder to...give. Basically, the explanation given is how we came about, and why we are here. Those explanations in and of themselves, do not sound better than at least some others. But from them we get how we should act, and why. And consequences of particular actions. And it explains why those consequences happen, if they actually happen. I think that I need to think more on this though, for a generalized explanation. On a more personal level, there are a lot of things that have happened in my past, and I suppose also in the present now, that have shaped who I am. And I can see how without them, I'd be worse than I am now (though by what evaluation I can't say), if I was even alive still. Those could be coincidence, but I find little...convincing power in that