To: Fester Chugabrew; CarolinaGuitarman
No. And saying God is outside the purview of science is not the same thing as saying God does not exist.I'll ask for CG... Yet that's precisely what "atheism" is: affirming that God does not exist. Are you then retracting your claim that it is "atheistic" to claim that "God is outside the purview of science"?
262 posted on
01/19/2006 6:00:19 PM PST by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis
He has redefined Atheistic to mean saying God is outside the realm of science. It's easy when you can make up your own meanings for words.
269 posted on
01/19/2006 6:07:50 PM PST by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Stultis
No. I am maintaining my claim that it is in principle atheistic to declare God as beyond the purview of science, with the atheistic principle attending only to what science claims for itself. I do not believe it is the proper place for science to make such a statement, or adopt it in principle.
If it is not possible to apply the word "atheistic" to a practice that, in principle and by declaration, eliminates God from consideration, then what adjective should be applied? The prefixes "a-," "non-," and "un-" are all privative. Little, if any, semantic difference.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson