Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

It is clear that belief in god(s) is anthropomorphism. It is also clear that the human minds that first conceived and taught gods had no evidence. After thousands of years there still is no evidence. To find one's self unable to accept these extraordinary claims is not to have a belief, but is instead lack of belief. I reiterate my claim that, generally speaking, those who call atheism a belief system cannot accept that there is nothing in atheism to argue against and so they project said belief system as a prop merely to allow for arguments to proceed anyway.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

And that is my final say in the matter, in this thread.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

On reading (scanning) Huxley’s Collected Essays I’d say the essence of what he said is not what you call agnosticism and I don’t think Huxley would call you an agnostic. It is closer to what I said earlier that you should start by not holding the views of theism and only adopt a view if there is evidence for it. This is not as you describe yourself when you say that you cannot reject there are gods or there are no gods:

If it is necessary for you to suggest that I am not an agnostic, you are certainly free to do so. I suggest, however, if you were to approach 100 intelligent members of the public at random and explained that there is “a person who claims not to know if there is a GOD; not to know if there are no gods; and does not see enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction”…

…and asked, what single word best describes that person—probably all 100 would reply, “AGNOSTIC.”

I think you realized that...and I think Huxley, if he were alive, could easily see that his original intent would eventually make its way to this point.

But since Huxley is dead, we cannot check out either of our positions with him...and it really doesn’t matter what he would say.

Most atheists of previous days would not call most of the so-called atheists of today “athesists.”

But today, that is how we use both those words.

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
…but as to the question of whether or not a god or gods are involved in the Reality of existence….I DO NOT KNOW.

I conclude that you are not an agnostic in the true sense of the word. You have made up an argument to suit your own needs and hijacked Huxley’s true intent for you own purposes... or have misunderstood Huxley’s essays.

Okay, conclude whatever you want. That’s allowed. But to suggest I have “hijacked” Huxley’s true intent is an absurdity. I think blaming it on the lexicographers of today would also be absurd.

Today the word “agnostic” is used to describe a spectrum of thought in religious argument that I fall well within. And several people have asked me to describe "my agnosticism", which I have done. Obviously, my agnosticism may vary from someone else's agnosticism just as your atheism may vary from someone else's atheism. There are atheists who make no assertions that there are no gods (use "atheism" based only on the lack of belief in any gods) and there are some who pro-actively assert "there are no gods and there is no possibility of gods." Both are atheists. There can be diversity, you know, igm.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I suggest, however, if you were to approach 100 intelligent members of the public at random and explained that there is “a person who claims not to know if there is a GOD; not to know if there are no gods; and does not see enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction”…

…and asked, what single word best describes that person—probably all 100 would reply, “AGNOSTIC.”

Frankie, the problem with this is that not a lot of people have ever even heard the word "agnostic", let alone understand what it means. Most people I know understand two words - religious and atheist. They don't even really know what theist means.

I'm talking about a reasonably well-educated (at least 4 years of university) group of people that I deal with every day.

They understand belief in a god - the alternative for them is atheism. They don't understand that there is an alternative to belief that isn't non-belief. The other piece (that's come in discussion at a2k many times over the years - you've seen it), is that they think that non-belief is a belief. You can just imagine how saying you don't know and can't be expected to know fries the last working brain circuit.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I think that set and I have some understandings of your review of Frank Apisa's Catechism. Youve tried to ascend a high point all the while denying that you are doing so.

Farmerman…yes, I think the view I have adopted for myself is superior to all others…and that is the reason I adopted it. I am assuming you and the others think atheism is superior, and the reason you adopted or espouse that. That is the way things work on issues like this. I have attempted to offer several reasons for why I see agnosticism as “better” (which is usually what we do in these forums)…and I have no problem with acknowledging that intelligent, well-meaning people can disagree with me.

Fine…so we disagree.

Sometimes the temperature goes up in these discussions, but no more with me than with many of you. And I have tried in this post to keep my conduct reasonable, although I will readily acknowledge that I have been returning some of Set’s barbs, albeit with a bit more finesse and class than he is able to manage.

Quote:

The funny-ness wears off and it gets (at least to me ) tiresome.

Sorry that happens, but since I think agnosticism has a certain value not found in theism or atheism, I have to offer these opinions in these discussions. I am not trying to be funny or tiresome…just to present a view that is otherwise lacking in most of the discussions here. The atheists FAR outnumber the agnostics and the atheistic viewpoint is offered on FAR more occasions. Why do you have such problems with me offering the agnostic perspective?

Quote:

Youve only now discussed the topic of this thread without a precursor visit down memory-lane with ytou. If you feel that agnosticism is superior and is one being "true to ones fashion" FINE. You have my blessings to believe that and I really understand your position. I JUST DO NOT SHARE IT

Fine…that is my position exactly. We are in accord.

Quote:

… and I see that you are a few jots south of going ballistic again. SO, I will duck out and let this thread turn into whatever you wish. It will ultimately return when you either
1. learn that your religious distinction is unimportant to an "evidence " base , or to this thread.OR

2You will go off in a huff of smoke again.

I am not going to go “ballistic” and probably will not go off in a huff of smoke. I dislike doing anything “in a huff of smoke.”

I am going to discuss some subjects…be reasonably friendly while doing so…and not take myself too seriously. I will attempt to be light-hearted and inject a bit of subtle humor--as I always have.

In any case, I’ve re-read my posts to you here in this present discussion and as far as I am concerned I have been reasonable, polite, and even friendly. I see no reason for some of the remarks you have made about me, although I acknowledge you have every right to make them as you see fit. In any case, thank you for responding to my post questioning why you have posted the remarks you have.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Thanks, Eorl.

We are not de-railing this discussion...nor are we hijacking the thread. Wandel has agreed that the sidebar discussion is not unwelcome.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

And that is my final say in the matter, in this thread.

I can't say I'm relieved ed but it will save reading a few more pointless posts which don't address the most fascinating debate topic on A2K. And much the most complex.

Even the Founding Fathers thought fit to give it some attention. But that was when they cut for the stone without knocking 'em out. And the lowest paid workers dug the draining ditches with spades.

It's come a long way, it's here, and it's a long way to go yet, as I'm told the polls show.

Wouldn't it be nice if the empirical stuff was brought to bear and the answer flashed up on the screen. Then we could all talk about something else.

Whales for example. As poor little things rather than as predatory beasts that gulp up millions of little harmless creatures, each one such a wonder of fantastic complexity that the most fancy mechanical pump that will ever be invented couldn't lay a glove on even the tiniest, and are so ******* up themselves that they go about spouting to draw attention to their presence. Evolution has gone to unimaginably enormous lengths to hide presence and here's these bloody heretics who think they are so superior that they can trumpet it. Well--they hadn't thought of humans with whaling ships equipped with the latest devices. They had got in balance with pre-Christian canoes and sharpened sticks. They even fling themselves up on beaches when their presence hasn't been noticed by their spouting. Ladies are like that if you take no notice of them.

Think of all the little creatures on land that get mangled to put roast beef on the table. Combine harvesters are designed a bit like a whale's gluttonous maw.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Hey, Beth...good to see ya.

Just looked at that picture you took of me stretched across Dag, K, and Kicky (someone posted it again)...and honestly had a tear come to my eyes. There can actually be love, happiness and fun involved in the group...and I wish some of the rancor going on here would never happen.

I guess since I am such a mouthy agnostic, I have managed to find more agnostics than most, but I do see the agnostic position (varying ones) and the word "agnostic" used in letters-to-the-editor and columns. We agnostics do tend to get short shrift from the media, however. Didn’t realize so many well-educated people actually do not recognize the word.

In any case, the last thing I want to do with any Americans is to “fry the last working circuitry.” We Americans have enough intellectual problems without me adding to them.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

They don't understand that there is an alternative to belief that isn't non-belief.

They couldn't be expected to in a conversation about belief. The actual alternative is a consciousness that has no concept of belief. Which, of course, could not engage in conversations on the matter. Even refusing to engage in conversations about belief betrays a consciousness of the concept.

And as soon as they stop to think about it, if they are capable of that, they know how much stuff they do believe. The God they don't believe in they believe to be roughly the same as the God others do believe it.

They believe they are all reasonably well educated and agree what that means.

Quote:

You can just imagine how saying you don't know and can't be expected to know fries the last working brain circuit.

He won't even lightly brown my first phalanx Beth. But it's a technique I have used a few times I must admit. It can lead to opportunities for self-aggrandisement. Maybe Frank is perfecting the technique for the Old Fogies Friday Night Knees-up.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

On reading (scanning) Huxley’s Collected Essays I’d say the essence of what he said is not what you call agnosticism and I don’t think Huxley would call you an agnostic. It is closer to what I said earlier that you should start by not holding the views of theism and only adopt a view if there is evidence for it. This is not as you describe yourself when you say that you cannot reject there are gods or there are no gods:

Frank Apisa wrote:

… I think Huxley, if he were alive, could easily see that his original intent would eventually make its way to this point.

But since Huxley is dead, we cannot check out either of our positions with him...and it really doesn’t matter what he would say.

Huxley is dead but his reasoning lives on in his essays. So it's not the same thing. If you've invented something new that is not in the founder's essays don't you need to invent a new word for it?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Most atheists of previous days would not call most of the so-called atheists of today “athesists.”

But today, that is how we use both those words.

Atheists are not going against the originator and the expounder of what it means to be an atheist.

If your brand of agnosticism had improved on Huxley’s agnosticism then I’d agree but your modern version is not an improvement. Huxley was closer to a scientific approach in regard to theism i.e. don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it. You have added: you can’t call yourself an atheist because you can’t prove there isn’t a god or gods. This is not progress. You are preventing atheists from agreeing with you when they may at least understand Huxley’s position because it's not too far from their own, but yours is and it isn’t progress… but a mistake that Huxley did not make.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it.

There are not many mistakes to rival that stupidity. If there is evidence there is no need for a religious belief.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If your brand of agnosticism had improved on Huxley’s agnosticism then I’d agree but your modern version is not an improvement.

I do not intend for it to be an improvement. You (or someone) asked about my brand of agnosticism and I responded. If you think my reasoning is wrong…so be it.

I do not know if there are gods involved in the Reality of existence; I do not know if there are no gods involved in the Reality of existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess. If that seems unreasonable to you…I guess I will have to live with that.

Quote:

Huxley was closer to a scientific approach in regard to theism i.e. don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it.

I think Spendius already said everything that has to be said about this gem.

Quote:

You have added: you can’t call yourself an atheist because you can’t prove there isn’t a god or gods.

I did???? Can you tell me where? I would be willing to bet big bucks that I never said I could not call myself an atheist because I cannot prove there isn’t a god. BIG BUCKS. That is why I have asked you to actually quote what you are arguing against, rather than paraphrase (which you are not very good at) …and then arguing against your erroneous paraphrasing. I mean this respectfully as possible, igm…but I defy you to back up your claim that I ever said I cannot call myself an atheist because I cannot prove there isn’t a god or gods.

Quote:

This is not progress. You are preventing atheists from agreeing with you when they may at least understand Huxley’s position because it's not too far from their own, but yours is and it isn’t progress… but a mistake that Huxley did not make.

Let’s concentrate on your mistakes right now. You are misrepresenting my position….and then arguing against that misrepresentation and essentially calling it wrong-headed. Not a reasonable thing to do.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
And that is my final say in the matter, in this thread.

I can't say I'm relieved ed but it will save reading a few more pointless posts which don't address the most fascinating debate topic on A2K. And much the most complex.

Even the Founding Fathers thought fit to give it some attention. But that was when they cut for the stone without knocking 'em out. And the lowest paid workers dug the draining ditches with spades.

It's come a long way, it's here, and it's a long way to go yet, as I'm told the polls show.

Wouldn't it be nice if the empirical stuff was brought to bear and the answer flashed up on the screen. Then we could all talk about something else.

Whales for example. As poor little things rather than as predatory beasts that gulp up millions of little harmless creatures, each one such a wonder of fantastic complexity that the most fancy mechanical pump that will ever be invented couldn't lay a glove on even the tiniest, and are so ******* up themselves that they go about spouting to draw attention to their presence. Evolution has gone to unimaginably enormous lengths to hide presence and here's these bloody heretics who think they are so superior that they can trumpet it. Well--they hadn't thought of humans with whaling ships equipped with the latest devices. They had got in balance with pre-Christian canoes and sharpened sticks. They even fling themselves up on beaches when their presence hasn't been noticed by their spouting. Ladies are like that if you take no notice of them.

Think of all the little creatures on land that get mangled to put roast beef on the table. Combine harvesters are designed a bit like a whale's gluttonous maw.

This post is a good example of why I generally skip over everything you post in the threads related to religious belief and evolution.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I understand ed. It's too clean cut and far too close to the truth for you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's irelevant bullshit, like all of your posts on here and the threads similar to this. Mostly, it seems you post just to garble the line of the thoughts being presented than actually trying to make any points at all.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it.

There are not many mistakes to rival that stupidity. If there is evidence there is no need for a religious belief.

This is what Huxley said not me... if you want to call Huxley stupid go ahead but don't infer I'm stupid because I wrote what he taught.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

Huxley was closer to a scientific approach in regard to theism i.e. don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it.

You have added: you can’t call yourself an atheist because you can’t prove there isn’t a god or gods.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did???? Can you tell me where?

It can be read in the way I intended it to be read. That you have added to Huxley's intent by saying you have to be agnostic and not atheist because you can never know whether there are gods or not. This is why you are an agnostic and not an atheist. But Huxley never said this and the out-of-context line you have highlighted (see above) refers to this NOT what you actually said.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let’s concentrate on your mistakes right now. You are misrepresenting my position….and then arguing against that misrepresentation and essentially calling it wrong-headed. Not a reasonable thing to do.

So I'm not misrepresenting your position as I have know explained. You have ignored Huxley's intent and have created an new agnostism based on a third party understanding or a first person wish or mistake. I can't debate some made up theory which is designed to avoid at all costs day- to-day common sense i.e. the common sense comes from atheism or the scientific method.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

It can be read in the way I intended it to be read. That you have added to Huxley's intent by saying you have to be agnostic and not atheist because you can never know whether there are gods or not.

I never said anything of the sort. Stop with the paraphrasing…AND ACTUALLY QUOTE ME.

I NEVER EVER said "...one can NEVER know whether there are gods or not." NEVER!!! Not here or anywhere else.

You simply do not read what I actually write…and insist on putting your words into my mouth. I am asking with all the respect in the world to stop doing that. Quote me if you want to...but do not put words into my mouth.

Now…show any place in this site (this thread and the posts here or the thousands of posts in other threads where I have participated) where I have EVER written the words “one can never know whether there are gods or not."

I NEVER HAVE!

QUOTE ME DIRECTLY, igm…do not paraphrase, because you are not very good at it.

Quote:

This is why you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

I am an Agnostic because I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist because I am not an atheist.

I designate myself an Agnostic, because I am an agnostic.

Quote:

But Huxley never said this and the out-of-context line you have highlighted (see above) refers to this NOT what you actually said.

I honestly do not understand what you are saying here. Try to be clearer. AND QUOTE rather than paraphrase, because you are getting my comments completely wrong.

Further, I do not really care what Huxley said about "agnosticism." The concept pre-dated him by centuries...and just because he coined a word for it does not mean he has exclusive rights to how it is used. The word "agnostic" today is used to denote a person who acknowledges he/she does not know if gods exists...or if they do not exist.

I have explained to you what I mean by my agnosticism...and if you want to discuss my agnosticism with me, I will be happy to do so. If you want to discuss Huxley's agnosticism with him...you are out of luck. He is dead.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Does this sound like your agnosticism?

Huxley:

"So that I think that even if the creeds, from the so-called "Apostles'" to the so-called "Athanasian," were swept into oblivion; and even if the human race should arrive at the conclusion that, whether a bishop washes a cup or leaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least consequence, it will get on very well. The causes which have led to the development of morality in mankind, which have guided or impelled us all the way from the savage to the civilised state, will not cease to operate because a number of ecclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be baseless. And, even if the absurd notion that morality is more the child of speculation than of practical necessity and inherited instinct, had any foundation; if all the world is going to thieve, murder, and otherwise misconduct itself as soon as it discovers that [317] certain portions of ancient history are mythical; what is the relevance of such arguments to any one who holds by the Agnostic principle?"

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

This is what Huxley said not me... if you want to call Huxley stupid go ahead but don't infer I'm stupid because I wrote what he taught.

Stupid is the least deprecatory word I might use to characterise repeating a stupidity that someone else taught and using that someone else's scientific reputation to enhance its credibility.

Anybody who doesn't know that the advice --

Quote:

don’t hold a religious belief unless there is evidence for it.

is stupid should not be straying into threads like this. We have not been here for nigh on seven years to put up with such an idiotic statement as that is.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know