A group for science enthusiasts of all types -- professionals, amateurs, students, anybody who loves science.
Latest Activity: May 15
Started by Pope Beanie. Last reply by Ken Hughes Mar 18, 2014.
Started by Radu Andreiu. Last reply by Pope Beanie Dec 3, 2013.
Started by Sadly 'M' iCantSay. Last reply by Dave G Jun 15, 2013.
Started by David Kenneth Craggs. Last reply by Jake Morrisse Apr 6, 2013.
Started by Nathan Hevenstone. Last reply by Nelly Bly Feb 24, 2013.
Started by Hope Jan 1, 2013.
Started by Matt. Last reply by R Allan Worrell Feb 23, 2012.
Started by Morgan Matthew. Last reply by Jim Sky Feb 14, 2012.
Started by Hope. Last reply by Chris Thomas Jan 26, 2012.
Started by Sydni Moser. Last reply by Akshay Bist Jul 26, 2011.
Started by Jason Lamar Sorensen. Last reply by Jim Sky Jul 11, 2011.
Started by Pope Beanie. Last reply by Pope Beanie Mar 21, 2011.
Started by landofhopeanglory Jan 6, 2011.
Started by Docteur Stephan Halbeisen. Last reply by doone Dec 29, 2010.
Started by Pancake Croissant. Last reply by Bill Dec 28, 2010.
Started by Radu Andreiu Dec 18, 2010.
Started by Sydni Moser. Last reply by No name Dec 6, 2010.
Started by Jesus_Was_A_Man_Or_Myth_Or_Both. Last reply by Jesus_Was_A_Man_Or_Myth_Or_Both Nov 30, 2010.
Started by day vo. Last reply by day vo Nov 12, 2010.
Started by day vo Nov 12, 2010.
Rocky writes, "What's wrong with simply, 'an atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods'?"
Nothing. But that's what "absence of belief" means--it means there is not a belief. It is not there. Period. Absence equals non-existence. When something is described as absent, there is absolutely no implication that it "should" be present.
In the phrase "lack of belief," by contrast, the pejorative connotation is plain and unarguable. A lack is deficiency--by definition. Therefore, one who lacks a belief in gods is missing something that is ostensibly needed. That's why the definition is flawed; it reflects an obvious bias.
Personally, I don't see a lot of improvement with "absence of" over "lack". Both imply something that "should" be there but that's missing.
What's wrong with simply, "an atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods"?
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."
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.
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. '
I'm going to print myself a grand piano...
Beer and monogamy? Of course, contrary to Jimmy Buffett's song, if you can't have sex, you get drunk!
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Sunday School June 28th 2015
Sunday School June 21th 2015
Sunday School June 14th 2015
Posted by innerspaceboy on July 2, 2015 at 6:30pm
Posted by Davis Goodman on June 26, 2015 at 11:20am
Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com
© 2015 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.