TED Community » Arkady Grudzinsky

More About Me

An idea worth spreading

It does not make sense to:
- hate intolerant people
- force other people to be free
- argue whether God created humans or humans created God
- believe that my beliefs are more reasonable than other people's beliefs
- believe that all beliefs need proof

Comments

• TEDCred score: +60.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Do we need privacy?

  1 hour ago: Kristian,
  
  So, how do you decide what's right or wrong? What's your absolute yardstick and litmus test to measure morality that would show the same result regardless of the context?
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  3 hours ago: "Larence Krauss: ... I've had this debate with Richard Dawkins; I've often said to him that if you want people to listen to you, the best way is not to go up to them and say, "You're stupid." Somehow it doesn't get through. "
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
  
  Here is an example of atheist attitude that I like and find constructive rather than destructive
  http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html
  http://www.alaindebotton.com/Religion.asp
  
  Here is a "civilized response" full of "rational arguments" from some New Atheists which I find rather embarrassing and shameful:
  
  http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/28/i-am-officially-disgusted-with-alain-de-botton/
  http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/02/28/alain_de_botton_abuse/
  
  I know, I'm being judgmental, but the language in these blogs, somehow, does not fit well with words "intellectual", "rational" or "respectful". Sounds more like hate speech to me. I couldn't do a better job if I deliberately wanted to deter people away from atheism.

• A reply on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  4 hours ago: I totally agree. Religion isn't inherently evil or harmful. It is very powerful. Perhaps, religion is the most powerful force in human society comparable to nuclear power in the physical world. It can do a lot of damage if not handled properly.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  4 hours ago: Re: "Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?"
  
  Any moral advice is hypocritical when it is addressed to others.
  Hating intolerant people does not promote tolerance.
  It's ironic that Mr. Dawkins is so upset that religious people are not willing to budge in their beliefs. I'm glad to see some criticism of this position among his fellow scientists
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

• A reply on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  4 hours ago: I completely agree that our brain is a pattern-finding machine. Our ability to make conclusions and draw cause-effect relationships is not much different than that of a Pavlov's dog. This is exactly how superstitions, prejudice, and stereotypes are created. Religion has little to do with it.
  
  “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.”
  
  ― Mark Twain
  
  This quote applies equally to atheists and believers. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Christians are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-evolution and anti-science. I don't think that atheists are less charitable or more immoral than believers. I even think that collecting any data to prove one way or another is immoral by itself.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  6 hours ago: It's not about the nail. (Not all women appreciate this video)
  
  http://vimeo.com/66753575
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Be the Change.....Do unto Others...... Just Words?

  6 hours ago: I'll comment on the title of the article: "Atheists just as obnoxious as Christians"
  
  I don't have a problem with either atheism, Christianity, or any other religion. What I find obnoxious is self-righteousness, derogatory attitude towards others and judging others. Christianity condemns these things. It's the "plank in their own eye" which self-righteous people often miss in their self-righteousness.
  
  Unfortunately, self-righteousness is not an exclusive trait of religious folks. Atheists, perhaps, are guilty of derision more than Christians, and judging others is a world-wide epidemic. Ironically, calling both sides "idiots" and using phrases like "pissing contest" in the article does not make it different from the parties it attempts to criticize.
  
  Here is an enigmatic Zen way to put things:
  "Four monks decided to meditate silently without speaking for two weeks. By nightfall
  on the first day, the candle began to flicker and then went out. The first monk said,
  "Oh, no! The candle is out." The second monk said, "Aren't we not suppose to talk?"
  The third monk said, "Why must you two break the silence?" The fourth monk laughed
  and said, "Ha! I'm the only one who didn't speak."

• A reply on Conversation: Do we need privacy?

  6 hours ago: Thanks, Pabitra. Good input regarding the distinction between secrecy and privacy.
  
  Don't you think that privacy often turns into secrecy because of fear of crime or persecution? It seems to me that our need for privacy would be a lot lower if we did not have that fear.
  
  My quote is from the movie "Pulp Fiction".
  
  Ariel Castro is a criminal who has made the news head lines in the U.S. about a month ago. You can look up his name on the Internet.
  
  As a Russian from Ukraine living in the U.S., I understand that cultural references are not always understood :-).
  
  Well, since UN declaration says that privacy is a right, it is so. Declaration is all that's needed for a right to exist.

• A comment on Conversation: Do we need privacy?

  7 hours ago: I believe, attitude towards privacy would differ from culture to culture. I would expect, in Eastern cultures where "common good" is often valued higher than "individual good", concerns for privacy are not as great as in Western countries. In Eastern countries, density of population is also higher than in the West which means that people have less personal space physically. I would be interested to hear an opinion from someone who lives in the East.

• A reply on Conversation: Do we need privacy?

  7 hours ago: Re: "From this perspective, we don't need privacy because it obscures/protects the criminals as we need as a society to be protected from criminals."
  
  You forget the other side. Privacy of OTHERS is not needed for our security. But our own privacy protects us from crime. Being open also protects us from suspicion and government harassment as implied by one of the videos that I quoted.
  
  All in all, as I stated, privacy is a form of freedom. And talking about freedom has no meaning unless we define "from what". This article makes this point very clear http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/cranston11.htm.
  
  security - The state of being free from danger or threat.
  
  privacy - 1. The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. 2. The state of being free from public attention.
  
  We can balance our need for privacy based on the relative value we place on these kinds of freedom: freedom from unwanted attention, freedom from danger or threat, freedom from suspicion of others.
  
  I think, being watched is often understood as being threatened. Perhaps, this feeling is an atavism from our primitive past associated with a gaze of a predator or an alpha-male.
  http://land.allears.net/blogs/photoblog/gorilla_stare_st.jpg. I think, this feeling is often irrational.