Genesis Explained Scientifically

October 19, 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Top Skeptic’s Commencement Speech

June 10, 2008

Here’s an amusing commencement speech from Michael Shermer, the founder of the Skeptic’s Society.

The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything
Read the rest of this entry »


Powerful god protects atheist??!!?

March 25, 2008

No. That can’t be it. Perhaps the tantrik death spell is just a bunch of horseshit. Yeah. That must be it.

The Great Tantra Challenge

I have to give credit to the tantrik.  At least he was honestly trying to use only spells (for most of the time) without attempting simple physical means like using the knife to cut out the atheist’s heart.


The Word Scientist Is Already Taken

September 30, 2007

We need a new word to denote one who believes that for which there is overwhelming evidence and gives credence to that for which there is some evidence and gives no credence to that for which there is no evidence. Scientist might be used as a word to mean a believer in science. However, just as sexist has already been used for another purpose, so can’t be used to indicate one who believes in sex, scientist has already been used to indicate one who actually practices science for a living, so cannot be used to indicate a believer in the tremendous value of scientific evidence.

Atheist is actually a bad word for this because, as Dawkins points out in God Delusion, this defines one by their non-belief. I am an atheist. I am also an athorist and an azeusist and an aodinist and an abaalist, etc. For this reason, I prefer to call myself an antitheist. This works for me because I actually do believe religion is an evil institution and am opposed to all forms of theism. So, for me, this works.

However, we still do not have a good name for one who does not oppose theism, but simply does not believe in it. Skeptic is one word that could accurately describe such a philosophy, but is also overloaded with other meaning both connotations and denotations.

So, the question is, what should we call someone that believes that extraordinary claims, such as an invisible man in the sky, must be backed up by evidence in order to be given credence (other than unelectable for office at any level anywhere in this U.S.)?