Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 12-12-2002, 01:27 PM

Mooman_FL,

I am an atheist, and I do not deny the existence of any god. This is because I do not believe that any gods exist (not to be confused with the belief that no gods exist).

Thus your assertion that atheism is a positive statement is demonstrably false, and your argument is thusly rendered moot.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule · 12-12-2002, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mooman_FL:
I am not saying that ID philosophy has the answer per se, simply a possibility.

What is this fetish you seem to have with "possibility". The realm of the logically possible is filled with all kinds of fantastic curiosities, of which the Faerie Kingdom is but one. There is zero difference between being 'open to the possibilities', and being laughably gullible.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Philosoft · 12-12-2002, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nXile:


Philosoft,
I would ask the same question:
why would someone use the word "proof" or any derivitave of the word to describe God's existence? Who are YOU (singular second person, not Philosoft personally) to PROVE God's existence?

I (Philosoft personally, not first person singular) would not use the word "proof" or any of its derivatives to describe God's alleged existence. In fact, at the risk of having this come back to bite me in the arse, I have never done so. The people who do so are misusing the term.

Quote:

How arrogant is that (apparently I come from the mindless religious grouping)?

It doesn't have anything to do with arrogance. They're just using the wrong word/concept.

Quote:

However, I'm not here to make pointless bickering, but pointful bickering....so...
I'm sorry my word choice of "faith" is a barrier to clear understanding. I am coming from a space where "faith" means "active being."

Well, my quick-and-dirty definition of faith is usually "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Why should I accept that "faith" means "active being," especially when I don't know what "active being" means?

Quote:

Thus using Philosoph's example:

"I have "active being" that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant"

in other words

"I live in a way that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant."

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the positive claimant. If you think this is mere opinion, I refer you to Carl Sagan's dragon.

Quote:

Words are blunt tools and I am a clumsy wielder. My apologies and I hope this helps clarify.

Forgive me, attempts to embed logical principles in the realm of the subjective is not what I would call clarification.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-12-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mooman_FL:

First of all let me state that biological evolution is far from being law. ...

You want someone to accept as fact something that you can't prove (and a possiblity is far from being proof). ...

This site on <a href="http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm" target="_blank">Science and Proof</a> is not a bad place to start.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

nXile · 12-12-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:

Well, my quick-and-dirty definition of faith is usually "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Why should I accept that "faith" means "active being," especially when I don't know what "active being" means?

Forgive me, attempts to embed logical principles in the realm of the subjective is not what I would call clarification.

Two things:
1) The Greek root word of faith, which is where the word comes from, means "active being." I did not simply make-up the definition. I agree, "active being" is indeed a strange term, especially since we view faith as a passive action, something we hold in our heads, not act out - though the greek root word of faith means the opposite of that.

2) I'm not sure exactly what you are asking forgiveness for (as this entire board is about placing logic into the subjective a.k.a. making order out of chaos), but I forgive you.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: nXile ]

gcomeau · 12-12-2002, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mooman_FL:
Just so you know I did not miss the point of Hawkings statement, but I have also seen it used to try and counter ID philosophy. That is an imperfect use at best. I am not saying that ID philosophy has the answer per se, simply a possibility.

As for the purpose of the design... well that is open to speculation but I do not agree that the design has to reflect a clear purpose. Look at most abstract art. What was the clear "observable without speculation" purpose? We don't know. You will have to ask the artist.

With all due respect, you are now wandering from the central issue. The Parthenon and the watch are used as examples of things which are clearly designed. If you are wandering along and stumble across them they are clearly recognizable as being designed. ID then goes on to argue that the universe is analogous and is also clearly designed.

The Parthenon and the watch have characteristics which point to design and have clear purposes... we can observe these and come to the conclusion that these things were indeed designed.

If you can point to no characteristic of the universe which implies design, and can show no purpose of the universe for which it seems to have been designed, then you have no business declaring that it appears to BE designed.

-Grant

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: gcomeau ]

Mooman_FL · 12-12-2002, 02:25 PM

ReasonableDoubt: Excellent reference and I will stand corrected as to the use of the word proof as the best word to describe my concept. However in other respects the essay on proof simply restated (or I restated independently) the same concept that I put out and supported my idea.

Again, I don't claim to have the answers... just some interesting questions. If you don't agree that they are interesting nobody will force you to post on this thread.

If you disagree that is your right and I would not presume to take that away from you if I could. Again I see some valid points as well as some semantical nit-picking in the post offered. But all in all I have been given food for though and will reply later in greater detail when I have chewed, swallowed, and digested the influx of comments.

Sci_Fidelity · 12-12-2002, 02:42 PM

Quote:

As for evolution... since when has it moved beyond the point of being a theory (see above argument on the meaning of hypothesi and theories and their historical track record). As such it does not have a complete set of evidence and if you relegate questioning of a theory based on dogma then you are indeed the one with the flat-earth mentality.

Oh for crying out loud- you lost ALL credibility with that statement, at least in my view.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sci_Fidelity ]

rdalin · 12-13-2002, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nXile:


The Greek root word of faith, which is where the word comes from, means "active being." I did not simply make-up the definition. I agree, "active being" is indeed a strange term, especially since we view faith as a passive action, something we hold in our heads, not act out - though the greek root word of faith means the opposite of that.

I checked three different dictionaries, and none of them had a meaning of 'active being' for 'faith.' Unless you're debating a Greek word in the New Testament (which is not the case), I don't understand what relevance the Greek root word has. Faith is not defined that way in English.

12-16-2002, 01:45 PM

I'm no linguist, but as far as I know faith comes from the Latin fides, for "confidence, belief."

Just an observation, but Mooman_FL seems to be limiting his retorts just as narrowly as the supposed semantic disagreements. Many of his points have been refuted without being addressed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2002, 01:27 PM	#31
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Mooman_FL, I am an atheist, and I do not deny the existence of any god. This is because I do not believe that any gods exist (not to be confused with the belief that no gods exist). Thus your assertion that atheism is a positive statement is demonstrably false, and your argument is thusly rendered moot. Sincerely, Goliath

12-12-2002, 02:25 PM	#37
Mooman_FL Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 10	ReasonableDoubt: Excellent reference and I will stand corrected as to the use of the word proof as the best word to describe my concept. However in other respects the essay on proof simply restated (or I restated independently) the same concept that I put out and supported my idea. Again, I don't claim to have the answers... just some interesting questions. If you don't agree that they are interesting nobody will force you to post on this thread. If you disagree that is your right and I would not presume to take that away from you if I could. Again I see some valid points as well as some semantical nit-picking in the post offered. But all in all I have been given food for though and will reply later in greater detail when I have chewed, swallowed, and digested the influx of comments.

12-16-2002, 01:45 PM	#40
FloatingEgg Guest Posts: n/a	I'm no linguist, but as far as I know faith comes from the Latin fides, for "confidence, belief." Just an observation, but Mooman_FL seems to be limiting his retorts just as narrowly as the supposed semantic disagreements. Many of his points have been refuted without being addressed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.