Comment

Comment by Don on January 19, 2011 at 6:01pm

Fred writes, "Take the definition of being an atheist.  What is it now.  All in Chorus.  Atheist: a person that lacks belief in gods or a God."

 

This common definition is NOT a definition that any atheist should accept.  

 

Please let me take this opportunity to point out here that it's a mistake for us (or anyone) to define atheism as a "lack of belief in gods."  Why?  Because that is the theists' definition of the word.  Many dictionaries offer this definition--but dictionaries are largely written by theists who fail to recognize their implicit bias. 

 

The word "lack" carries the connotation of deficiency, the sense that what is lacking is something to be desired. By definition, to lack something is to be in need of whatever one lacks.  Atheists know that belief in god is nothing to be desired.   We don't lack theistic belief; instead, we simply do not have it. 

 

The better and more accurate definition is: "the absence of [belief in] gods." It's from the Greek; "a" meaning "not" or "without," and "theism" meaning [belief in] gods.

 

As George Smith has written:

 

"Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.  Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god."

 

Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989)

Comment by Don on January 19, 2011 at 9:33am

Lee comments: "The intelligent design crowd holds that all ordered systems must be the product of design, which is obviously false. Robin Hanson is making the same error in the opposite direction: he’s claiming that even systems that weren’t designed by humans can be treated as “designed” by evolution. I think this claim is equally fallacious, for roughly the same reason."

 

He's right.  The brain cannot have been "designed," because to design something is to engineer it purposefully with a plan already in mind.

Comment by Messenger on January 10, 2011 at 2:31am

Im sorry you feel that way. Forgive me if Im wrong but the technological ideas which the Venus project consists of has a lot to do with science. The Zeitgeist is the only the political arm. If you do not agree thats fine however, the idea of a self-sufficient cybernated city which is ran by an economy based on resource distribution requires scientific input. Or am I way off? I dont mean to sound arrogant. Let me know what you think.

Comment by Messenger on January 10, 2011 at 1:16am

Im not sure if anyone here is familiar with the Zeitgeist Movement or the Venus project. Please check it out. It is very much the future we hope for. '

 

www.thevenusproject.com        www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Comment by Jaume on January 8, 2011 at 5:29pm

I'm going to print myself a grand piano...

Comment by Doug Reardon on January 3, 2011 at 8:26pm

Beer and monogamy?  Of course, contrary to Jimmy Buffett's song, if you can't have sex, you get drunk!

Comment by Radu Andreiu on January 3, 2011 at 10:19am

Why would the number of earthquakes increase? Is it because the Apocalypse is near? :-o

Comment by Jaume on December 29, 2010 at 10:47am

Funny how the second picture is reminiscent of De Mille's The Ten Commandments.

Comment by Don on December 29, 2010 at 10:40am

Vehicles with monstrous snowblowers on the front.  And trucks that catch the pulverized snow and take it elsewhere.

Comment by Jaume on December 29, 2010 at 10:35am

What sort of equipment did they use to cut through the snow so cleanly?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 22
• Next ›
• Page