19:20 Posted: Jan 2012
Views: 1,287,832 | Comments: 1174
09:08 Posted: Jan 2012
Views: 854,796 | Comments: 121
05:14 Posted: Nov 2010
Views: 1,222,900 | Comments: 609
16:34 Posted: Dec 2010
Views: 469,002 | Comments: 257
13:07 Posted: Jun 2010
Views: 576,891 | Comments: 227
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Would atheists benefit from a community? Are they maximizing such benefits?
To which the answer would be your same 'YES!'
It seems self-evident that we humans all need and benefit from community. This is probably the reason we've come up with so many religions over the years.
And we atheists, despite our flat non-belief in the supernatural, still need community. Which is why we find ourselves now contemplating forming a religion of our own.
Chris Anderson asked a very good question in Atheism 2.0 about the need to be part of something greater than oneself. Alain De Botton, despite having just delivered an excellent sermon, gave what I consider to be the typical cop-out atheist answer. And I've given it more times than I can count, so there...
Being part of the hugeness of the universe is inspiring and numinous to the right sort of person yes, but I think the real meat of the issue lies elsewhere. It is not enough to be a part of something greater than the individual, one must feel that he or she is a contributing part of such greatness, whatever it may be. And so the standard secular answer fails to fulfill this need, for it's hard to feel like we actually contribute anything substantial to the greatness of the Cosmos itself. By contrast, devotion to pleasing the creator(s) of everything feels both within our reach and important.
So what can we become a part of, what can we devote ourselves to, that is real, improvable, and worthwhile? Ultimately we all must decide for ourselves (such is the problem with lacking an infallible deity), but I'm currently leaning towards "Each Other."
A comment on Conversation: What Clay Shirky said about using cognitive surplus in civic ways sounds great. Are there websites with links to specific ways to do this?
A comment on Conversation: Can we really become happier? Happier ourselves? Can we create happier places to work? Or even happier societies?
Happiness is like a butterfly. Chase it and it will always elude you, but divert your attention to other things, and it will come and rest quietly on your shoulder.
A comment on Conversation: Would you eat "in vitro" meat?
A reply on Conversation: is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
A comment on Conversation: Should public schools in the United States eliminate the traditional A to F grading scale? And if so, what assessment do we replace it with?
My principle problem with A-F is not that it's a standard rubric, but that it claims to be and isn't. What would be more equitable in my opinion is a system that gives students goals, and checks them off the list when completed to a high standard... if not up to par, they get bounced back and get to try again. There should not be a penalty no matter how many times you get it wrong before you get it right, as long as you eventually get there. Likewise, there should be no unnecessary grinding for those that get it right the first time, they should simply get to move on. And now that I've ventured past the OP by a fair margin, I'll get back to the point: Should we get rid of A-F? Eventually. Is there anything better? Of course! There's always something better, it's just a matter of when and where we find it.
A comment on Conversation: As 2011 draws to a close, what is your personal takeaway this year? What did life teach you in 2011?
A comment on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?