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.
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 27 2012: Except for "morality". Morality does not come from religion, but from socio- and socio-economical evolution and pressures. If we took the "morality" of the bible, we would still be slave holders, burning people at the stake, raping virgins in order to obtain a wife, stoning her to death when we find out she isn't a virgin on our wedding nights, beating children, stoning children to death if they talked back to us, committing genocide and more. Sharia law comes from Yhwh, it is not something that mohammad made up. it comes from the Old Testament, just like xian law does. Notice that in the 10 commandments, there is no mention of fraud, or rape, or destruction of another's property, or pedophilia. Notice that the bible can be interpreted to allow people to treat homosexuals as not just sub-citizens, but sub-humans, despite the fact that no person has any control over their sexuality, or who they are attracted to. And yet at the same time, it condones and even commands that people hold slaves and details just how severely they are allowed to be beaten.
No, morality does not come from the bible or even from god himself. He is such a inept leader, teacher, parent (whatever you want to call him) that he ended up having to wipe out the entire human race because he couldn't figure out how to communicate how he wanted them to act. The, 2000 years later, had to have a brutal blood sacrifice to himself just to allow some humans to be acceptable to himself. Sad, sad, sad. I am amazed that people actually think that any decency could come out of fairy tales that are even more horribly, disgustingly brutal than even the Brothers Grimm could imagine up.
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 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?
Jan 27 2012: To be honest, I could really care less if someone is "offended" by my lack of buying into their delusion. I am more than happy to listen to their arguments for their beliefs, if they are willing to listen to my arguments against those beliefs. My attitude is pretty much, if you are offended by and don't want to listen to me laugh in your face, don't present your fairy tales to me as though they were in any way reasonable or made any sense.
I think there is value in all approaches. Sometimes being extremely subtle has value, sometimes being blatantly, brutally honest has it's value. Obviously, subtly is not my strong suite (yes, I know it's PAINFULLY obvious, lol), so I'll let someone else cover the subtle, placating approaches. :)
Jan 26 2012: I would assume you can define the term any way you feel the need. I agree that most of the participants refer predominantly to yhwh, but if you want to be more general, just try to be specific in your definition. For me, a fairy tale is a fairy tale. There is no evidence that ANY religion is valid and there is no evidence of any "afterlife", so no matter how you define the term, I'm going to be atheistic about it. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. If there is some sort of afterlife, IMHO, it makes no difference. The xian version is clearly false, so we couldn't possibly have any idea what it would be like, so it is really just an exercise in futility to even try to imagine it.
Jan 26 2012: As to the term "agnostic", it seems that people that bother to use that term are really just trying to hedge their bets. Here's a question: Are you "agnostic" about the existence of Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns? Are you "agnostic" about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus? Are you "agnostic" about the existence of Mithra or Ra? If not, why would you be "agnostic" about yhwh? Why would you feel the need to hedge your bets just because as much of the population now believes in that fairy tale as they did in Odin and Hercules during their time? Are you *really* agnostic or are you just trying to placate the majority and appear less "offensive" to their delicate sensibilities?
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.
If we look at our ancestor, we see that we evolved from a common ancestor to bobos and chimps. If we look at our physiology, we have the exact same body parts as other animals. it is clearly evident that we are animals that happened to have evolved a larger brain. Conclusion: we are animals.
If we look at any religion out there: There is not a single speck of evidence that there is any validity of any of their claims. Conclusion: Religions are false.
Regarding your question: Is the belief that we are animals the same as a belief in "god"? One has evidence and the other has evidence against it. Conclusion: fact vs delusion. Therefore I think the answer is "No".
TEDCred score: +1.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Atheists also beleive.
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.
A reply on Conversation: Atheists also beleive.
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!!!
A reply on Conversation: Religion and Atheism
No, morality does not come from the bible or even from god himself. He is such a inept leader, teacher, parent (whatever you want to call him) that he ended up having to wipe out the entire human race because he couldn't figure out how to communicate how he wanted them to act. The, 2000 years later, had to have a brutal blood sacrifice to himself just to allow some humans to be acceptable to himself. Sad, sad, sad. I am amazed that people actually think that any decency could come out of fairy tales that are even more horribly, disgustingly brutal than even the Brothers Grimm could imagine up.
A reply on Conversation: Atheists also beleive.
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.
A reply on Conversation: Atheists also beleive.
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?
A reply on Conversation: Religion and Atheism
I think there is value in all approaches. Sometimes being extremely subtle has value, sometimes being blatantly, brutally honest has it's value. Obviously, subtly is not my strong suite (yes, I know it's PAINFULLY obvious, lol), so I'll let someone else cover the subtle, placating approaches. :)
A reply on Conversation: Religion and Atheism
A comment on Conversation: Religion and Atheism
A comment on Conversation: Religion and Atheism
A reply on Conversation: Atheists also beleive.
If we look at our ancestor, we see that we evolved from a common ancestor to bobos and chimps. If we look at our physiology, we have the exact same body parts as other animals. it is clearly evident that we are animals that happened to have evolved a larger brain. Conclusion: we are animals.
If we look at any religion out there: There is not a single speck of evidence that there is any validity of any of their claims. Conclusion: Religions are false.
Regarding your question: Is the belief that we are animals the same as a belief in "god"? One has evidence and the other has evidence against it. Conclusion: fact vs delusion. Therefore I think the answer is "No".
Seems pretty simple to me. LOL