Professor Umesh Vaidya!

Good news! My friend and colleague Umesh has accepted a faculty position at Iowa State University!
Way to go, Umesh! Umesh joins Mihailo at University of Minnesota and Vasu at UIUC as the latest brave souls from our group to take the plunge into academia. Aruna (Stryker, Bay area) and Maria (Austria) have taken on the industry by the horns. Way to go, y'all.

You're up next, Hana! (tough choice to make between Johns Hopkins, Washington Seattle, UCSF and surely many more offers are on the way)

atheist, Bright, God

Here's what Google finds for "atheist"

Google Search: define: atheist

Also see this. When one reads "one who denies the existence of a God or gods", two important things to understand are "deny" and "God". "God" can be found here

All the emphasis on a "usually male" god is funny! In any case, belief in a deity (supernatural) is a necessary condition for the discussion on theism/atheism. People who say "I believe in Nature", "I am trying to merge with Being" fall outside this discussion unless they believe in something with supernatural powers. The word "theist" does not characterize your spirituality, only whether you believe a God exists.

Who or what is a BRIGHT? Isn't it an adjective?

Be sure to check out BRIGHT if you've never heard the term used. Tracking the Bright Idea is a nice place to read some more. Of course, with Google around, I don't need to point you to more articles.

There are plenty of people (both within and outside the umbrella of the term such as folks here)who hate the term "bright"

On a completely unrelated note about "God",

Often a follower of a non-monotheistic religion worhips many gods, they have in their minds something quite different from an all powerful " I can kick all your butts" kind of God. So, quit your "He has a million gods, hahaha" and try to understand what they really believe in.

I am an unbeliever and an agnostic, but not an atheist?

When Amanda says that she doesn't believe in a god, or in God, she is almost always challenged with "How do you know that God does not exist?". But of course, she never did say that God does not exist. The distinction is hardly subtle. Those that don't understand, please just sit down and think hard enough and you will understand :-).

The organization American Atheists (AA) holds that "atheist" may be defined as a person who simply does not believe in God. However, a lot of people don't associate that meaning for the word, and instead, think of a smaller subset - the no-God believers. Dictionaries differ in their definition of atheism. So, my friend Balaji suggests that since the word "atheist" is already taken, Amanda should call herself an unbeliever.

"Ah, an agnostic!", you say. But no, agnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in God. It has everything to do with whether you think God is a knowable entity or not.

Check out this most outstanding website to read about atheism and this one to read about agnosticism. This person likes the the not-a-theist definition of atheism and uses words like "strong atheism", "weak atheism". Think what you will of such nomenclature.

So, is Amanda the unbeliever simply running away from the issue? Not necessarily. She might hold the opinion that she will not hold a belief until she finds enough supporting evidence. What's the goddamn hurry to take a stance, anyway?

Arundhati Roy: opinion

I do not find Arundhati Roy annoying. I have no problems with her activism (India needs such people), nor do I find her to be unqualified to speak on certain matters - I think every citizen of a country is perfectly qualified to speak on any public issue. But I do not agree with affording her celebrity status in the West.

She is, more or less, an irrelevant voice within India itself, but here, she regularly speaks to packed audiences and is treated like she is struggling single-handedly against injustice and is the only hope for the people. So, why doesn't she pull such crowds in India -does any of the organizations give that a thought before inviting her to speak?

She speaks so forcefully against globalization, but she is one of the prime beneficiaries of a global economy - and that's not by accident. She sells the Indian story to a Western audience and presents stories they want to hear in words they want to hear and profits from this.

OK, she is beautiful and speaks very good English. But her views certainly are not representative of what people in India are thinking. Not of the majority, not of any significant minority. She is a self-promoter above all. I can't hold that against anybody, but I cannot pay to go watch her talk.