97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:27 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Bloody hell Frank. For Gawd's sake man.

Nobody has any evidence that there are Gods. Or that there are no Gods. Or that there can be no Gods.


Okay, we are in agreement here.


Quote:
But there has to be our God to explain our existence.


Really?! Why is that?

Quote:
If you want to discuss "existence" in the abstract then it's philosophy. Another forum. Nobody on the philosophy threads knows what existence is in the abstract. And here on a science thread, a matter of fact subject, you want to use the word philosophically to square your circle.


All the respect in the world, Spendius, but I would submit that "But there has to be our God to explain our existence." is about as unscientific as it gets.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Okay, we are in agreement here.


You've not just worked that out have you? Sheesh!

Quote:
All the respect in the world, Spendius, but I would submit that "But there has to be our God to explain our existence." is about as unscientific as it gets.


Can you imagine our existence, yours and mine, being as it is without our God? The very language you use derives from the Christian project.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:44 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Can you imagine our existence, yours and mine, being as it is without our God?


Yes I can.

Quote:
The very language you use derives from the Christian project.


Don't know what "the Christian project" is, Spendius, but I thought most of the language I use is derived from German, Latin and Greek.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Thanks for the comment, Rosborne. If you look at what I have written, you will see that mostly I use the term "gods"...so as not to have to deal with that problem.

I've watched the discussion and I don't think everyone is talking about the same thing. It certainly doesn't help the clarity of your discussion to be making assumptions about what "god" or "gods" are.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Atheism, in its classical sense (and the way it came into the English language), denies the existence of gods.
Atheism just means, "without Theism". Nothing more. Any association you with to attach to it beyond that is subjective, and would also need to be defined before any meaningful discussion could take place.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
By all means, do not leave this discussion if you see something illogical in what I am saying. I am willing to discuss and explain anything I've said here.
You appear to be consistent within your own framework of definitions. It's only when trying to match frameworks with others in the discussion that the incongruity arises.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:15 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Atheism just means, "without Theism". Nothing more. Any association you with to attach to it beyond that is subjective, and would also need to be defined before any meaningful discussion could take place.


No, it does not, Rosborne. Atheism came into the English language BEFORE theism. Atheism does not derive from theism...it comes to us from the Greek through the French. It derives ultimately from "a" without + "theos" gods...and means without gods. One cannot be "without gods" unless one is asserting there are no gods.

Dictionaries describe how words are used...and today, because atheists want to suggest that it means "without theism"...it has come to mean "without a belief in gods."

But "classical atheism" which is the term I used, is not nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
But "classical atheism" which is the term I used, is not nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
Then your classic definition differs from the current precise definition. And that's fine if you want to use your definition. But that just supports my point that this discussion isn't likely to make much progress until various terms are defined and agreed upon.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Don't know what "the Christian project" is, Spendius, but I thought most of the language I use is derived from German, Latin and Greek.


Of course I know what the Christian project is.

An ancient Greek knew what "television" meant. Seeing at a distance. The idea that he knew what it means to us is ludicrous.

All the buildings are derived from the earth. But the architectural language is different in each culture. The mosque and the cathedral actually contradict each other. But they both derive from the earth.

That was a childish argument Frank.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:32 pm
@rosborne979,
Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463. wrote:
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:42 pm
@spendius,
Quote:

Of course I know what the Christian project is.


C'mon, Spendius. I was not suggesting that YOU do not know what "the Christian project" is...I was telling you that I do not know what it is.

My argument was not childish.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:48 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463. wrote:
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.


Michael Martin is not here, so I cannot argue with him, but he is wrong in what he says here.

In Greek, as he notes "a" means 'without" and "theos" means "gods"....and from this standpoint, an atheist would simply be someone WITHOUT GODS. "A" without + "theos"....WITHOUT GODS.

The inclusion of the word "belief" by Martin is gratuitous...and makes no sense.

Look...atheists can use the word "atheism" whatever way they want to...but I was making a statement about classical atheism. Some atheists very definitely do insist there are no gods...and some even insist there cannot possibly be any gods.

Fine.

I an agnostic. I do not know if there are gods or not.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:51 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Then your classic definition differs from the current precise definition.


The "current precise definition" is all over the place. Look the word up in several dictionaries...and you will see that some give a definition of "atheist" as "one who denies the existence of gods."
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 02:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The "current precise definition" is all over the place.
Exactly.

The one I use is based on ideas like this:
Quote:
One might argue that the term "Jewish" should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term "atheist" should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.

Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of "atheism," including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:14 pm
@rosborne979,



Once again, Rosborne, the citations you brought here all seem to suggest that “atheism” is derived from “a” + “theism”…which would make it “a” without + “theism” a belief in god = without a belief in god.

But atheism did not come into the English language that way…it derived the way I have stated a couple of times now…and originally meant without gods.

I have no problem with atheists using it the way you are suggesting…and I accept that they do. (I do not accept that only a “small minority” of atheists “deny the existence of God"—I suspect most do, but only a few, like Edgar, actually acknowledge that they do.)

In any case, it really does not matter, because that is not what we are arguing here.

This entire thing started when I returned to A2K, and after being asked a question, mentioned a post of mine of several years ago, which reduces to:

If there is the possibility of a god …then there is the possibility of Intelligent Design.

I did not say a god exists…I did not even say there is the possibility of a god…I merely posited a hypothetical of sorts.

IF there is the possibility of a god…then there is the possibility of Intelligent Design.

I even granted that IF there is Intelligent Design, that design is exactly what scientists are discovering…the "design" is what science is coming up with. No reason why there could not be a god…intelligently designing evolution as we are uncovering it through scientific endeavor.

HOWEVER, the only way there can be no possibility of a god (and thus no possibility of Intelligent Design)…is if it is impossible for gods to exist.

So forget about “atheist” no matter how defined…and deal with the question “Is it impossible for gods to exist?”

Which is what I have been doing.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, I stand by what I've said. Agnosticism is irrelevant and is a belief. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods and is therefore superior. I stand by my logical refutation of your logic i.e. the infinite gods fallacy that your position requires and you ignored as if it was never posted. I stand by what I said about your view being too narrow and to exclusive to be agnostism. You have a personal belief and it is trite and a pale refelection of Huxley's. Etc.. etc... etc...Finally your 'four questions' are irrellivant because true atheism is all you need to say you are not a theist. You have not the best but the worst of both... you end up having to defend theism and atheism whilst denying both... it is absurd in every respect.

You may not understand this analogy but anyway:

Imagine everything we know as represented by 'white balls' so all that we know is white balls. One of those white balls calls himself 'Frank'. He tells everyone that he believes that there could be something other than white balls but he can't show them to us and he doesn't have enough evidence to know if they exist. Frank pleads... but please believe 'Frank' because nevertheless he believes that there isn't enough evidence to refute this 'something' that he can never show us... that isn't a white ball.

Laughing
farmerman
 
  2  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
would make it “a” without + “theism” a belief in god = without a belief in god.

That is its root in Greek. There was no Greek word exactly that was specifying one who lived "without gods-"or in popular parlance, "rejecting the existence of gods. You just wanna maintain the greek root as the only definition and that just is flat wrong. BTW--I would call you more pof a deist than agnostic
igm
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:33 pm
@igm,
My last post was edited for clarity.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
That is its root in Greek. There was no Greek word exactly that was specifying one who lived "without gods-"or in popular parlance, "rejecting the existence of gods. You just wanna maintain the greek root as the only definition and that just is flat wrong. BTW




I do not want to "maintain the greek root as the only definition"...and have gone out of my way to state that you guys can define atheism whatever way you want. I have acknowledged that today's dictionaries...and today's atheists define it differently from the classic definition.

Why are you saying this...when I have plainly stated all that?

Quote:
--I would call you more pof a deist than agnostic


Obviously you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you would call me.

I am an agnostic...and I have gone to great lengths to explain my "brand" of agnosticism...just as you atheists often explain the kind of atheist you are.



0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:35 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Frank, I stand by what I've said. Agnosticism is irrelevant and is a belief. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods and is therefore superior. I stand by my logical refutation of your logic i.e. the infinite gods fallacy that your position requires and you ignored as if it was never posted. I stand by what I said about your view being too narrow and to exclusive to be agnostism. You have a personal belief and it is trite and a pale refelection of Huxley's. Etc.. etc... etc...Finally your 'four questions' are irrellivant because true atheism is all you need to say you are not a theist. You have not the best but the worst of both... you end up having to defend theism and atheism whilst denying both it is absurd in every respect.

You may not understand this analogy but anyway:

Imagine everything we know as represented by 'white balls' so all that we know is white balls. One of those white balls calls himself 'Frank'. He tells everyone that he believes that there could be something other than white balls but he can't show them to us and he doesn't have enough evidence to know if they exist. Frank pleads... but please believe 'Frank' because nevertheless he believes that there isn't enough evidence to refute this 'something' that he can never show us... that isn't a white ball.


Whatever!

If you can claim that "I do not know" is a "belief"...I doubt any logical arguments will ever make sense to you.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 17 Jan, 2012 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank, I stand by what I've said. Agnosticism is irrelevant and is a belief. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods and is therefore superior. I stand by my logical refutation of your logic i.e. the infinite gods fallacy that your position requires and you ignored as if it was never posted. I stand by what I said about your view being too narrow and to exclusive to be agnostism. You have a personal belief and it is trite and a pale refelection of Huxley's. Etc.. etc... etc...Finally your 'four questions' are irrellivant because true atheism is all you need to say you are not a theist. You have not the best but the worst of both... you end up having to defend theism and atheism whilst denying both... it is absurd in every respect.

You may not understand this analogy but anyway:

Imagine everything we know as represented by 'white balls' so all that we know is white balls. One of those white balls calls himself 'Frank'. He tells everyone that he believes that there could be something other than white balls but he can't show them to us and he doesn't have enough evidence to know if they exist. Frank pleads... but please believe 'Frank' because nevertheless he believes that there isn't enough evidence to refute this 'something' that he can never show us... that isn't a white ball.

Laughing

Whatever!

If you can claim that "I do not know" is a "belief"...I doubt any logical arguments will ever make sense to you.


Your reply says everything about you and your belief... Frank. Stick to chatting about stuff not defending your... um... um... what is it again?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 08:24:37