Is there any possibility (not through extreme skepticism) that human nature could be entirely relative the observer. For instance, if I want to be happy and not be lonely on my own in complete isolation could I conceivably do so?

I don't mean appear to be happy and develop some psychosis as a result of my isolation but rather true happiness, human contentedness so to speak.


So I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not its possible to completely change your values and be content with them? Can I overcome this desire of having other people in my life? I wouldn't mind doing this but I fear it might lead to some schizoid disorder and I would like to prevent that...

Sartre seems to think so and I just feel like he's denying human nature, is this possible?

So you're a lonely loser inbred reject, who justifies his lonelyness saying that he likes being alone?

So you're a lonely loser inbred reject, who justifies his lonelyness saying that he likes being alone?

HAHA I WAS!

But, I'm not anymore...Realized it was some problem I was having with my Dad, weird...Whatever. Point is that I consolidated myself with him and now I realized how stupid that idea it was...But I feel fantastic now and this thread can be closed.

If you want to know what im talking about...long story short, i was unhappy, took lsd, broke my life down and figured out it was because my relationship with dad, it happened today was parents weekend, my dad came up and we made amends...life is great when you figure out problems. You can insult me all you want but i honestly don't give a fuck because im happy and its all that matters. how you see the world and others is how you see yourself...

~peace

Neat.

Is there any possibility (not through extreme skepticism) that human nature could be entirely relative the observer. For instance, if I want to be happy and not be lonely on my own in complete isolation could I conceivably do so?

I don't mean appear to be happy and develop some psychosis as a result of my isolation but rather true happiness, human contentedness so to speak.


So I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not its possible to completely change your values and be content with them? Can I overcome this desire of having other people in my life? I wouldn't mind doing this but I fear it might lead to some schizoid disorder and I would like to prevent that...

Sartre seems to think so and I just feel like he's denying human nature, is this possible?

Sartre would moreso say that human nature does not exist at all, or that it is simply something which we create through our actions (which isn't nature). I would not say human nature can be subjective. It is a descriptive statement on how humans generally act, not just on how you act. You being able to act outside of how your supposed to, ie how "human nature" would say you would act simply gives credence to the theory that there is no human nature.

No, I'm pretty sure human nature is objective. It is relativist in the sense that human nature only applies to humans (duh) but that's pretty much the extent of the subjectivist aspects of human nature.

I believe human nature is subjective. Think free will. Our basic needs are objective. If that makes any sense.

No, I'm pretty sure human nature is objective. It is relativist in the sense that human nature only applies to humans (duh) but that's pretty much the extent of the subjectivist aspects of human nature.

Then what is it?

EDIT: Hey Drache, I spelled "you're" wrong on purpose. :)

You've been struggling with the definition of 'subjective' for over 12 months now....
'Human Nature' is just an abstract term used to explain behavioral patterns generally shared by humans. ie. an objective concept.
All definitive terms are objectives.
As for your idea, no, not really.
You are a heinous idiot, and should not make any more threads.

Then what is it?

It's objective in the sense that there is one true human nature, it's relativist in the sense that human nature only applies to humans. It's not subjective in the sense that every human has a different human nature.

Does that make sense? XD

It's objective in the sense that there is one true human nature, it's relativist in the sense that human nature only applies to humans. It's not subjective in the sense that every human has a different human nature.

Does that make sense? XD

I was asking you to tell me what this human nature was, because if you can't tell me what it is we can't know that it's anything more than "generalized behavioral patterns" which can be violated.

You've been struggling with the definition of 'subjective' for over 12 months now....
'Human Nature' is just an abstract term used to explain behavioral patterns generally shared by humans. ie. an objective concept.
All definitive terms are objectives.
As for your idea, no, not really.
You are a heinous idiot, and should not make any more threads.

You're wrong about this....


Human nature is completely interdependent on outside influences...This implies that human nature is completely relative to the situation the person is placed into (subjective)...The only objective quality about human nature is that of biological necessity (food,water, survival)...That isn't human nature that's the nature of living organisms...

In terms of what I was talking about (social human nature) it's entirely relative...That was Sartre's point...I like to believe he was more intelligent than you...

Like nshanin said: Human nature is simply a pattern of the majority, a patter which can be violated ( not subjective)...If something can be violated that implies it's subjectivity...The only thing that is objective is "being"...We provide the essence which is relative and therefore subjective...

In conclusion: Fuck you.

You fuckers give me a headache. Stop making things so complicated and focus on something a little more producitve. Like... learning how to wipe your collective ass.

LOL wow this is so fucking stupid of course you can fool lol human nature is completely subjective and based how how you make it

I was asking you to tell me what this human nature was, because if you can't tell me what it is we can't know that it's anything more than "generalized behavioral patterns" which can be violated.

http://jim.com/rights.html

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf

In short, human nature is not completely knowable, but certain aspects of it are.

http://jim.com/rights.html

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf

In short, human nature is not completely knowable, but certain aspects of it are.

Ugh, Von Mises. Tell me which of those "aspects" one would not be able to violate.

Poisoning the well.

Poisoning the well.

Refusing to answer the fucking question.

Refusing to answer the fucking question.

I'm not asking you to read everything, but it would be nice if you at least looked at the links. They answer your question.

I'm not asking you to read everything, but it would be nice if you at least looked at the links. They answer your question.

I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking for a concept and if that concept seems sufficiently unopposable while not being a property of all living things then I will look at your links for the explanation. I have yet to see a proper proof of human rights whether from libertarians or leftists, your first link is preposterous in that regard (it's analogous to "you can't reason God"). I'm just asking for a concept.

I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking for a concept and if that concept seems sufficiently unopposable while not being a property of all living things then I will look at your links for the explanation. I have yet to see a proper proof of human rights whether from libertarians or leftists, your first link is preposterous in that regard (it's analogous to "you can't reason God"). I'm just asking for a concept.

... which is explained in the Ethics of Liberty... which I linked in my post.

But to make it easier for you, the basic arguments of the followers of natural rights are:


The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, "goodness" is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; "goodness" is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes:

The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped … Why is the natural good? … [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and … the most empirical and … rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good — whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.

In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature.

The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man — what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen — for whatever reason — to place high on their scales of value. Satisfaction of those ends yields to man his "utility" or "satisfaction" or "happiness."

Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective — determined by the natural law of man's being, and here "happiness" for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense. As Father Kenealy put it:

This philosophy maintains that there is in fact an objective moral order within the range of human intelligence, to which human societies are bound in conscience to conform and upon which the peace and happiness of personal, national and international life depend.



One common philosophic objection to natural law ethics is that it confuses, or identifies, the realism of fact and value. For purposes of our brief discussion, John Wild's reply will suffice:

[i]In answer we may point out that their [natural law] view identifies value not with existence but rather with the fulfillment of tendencies determined by the structure of the existent entity. Furthermore, it identifies evil not with non-existence but rather with a mode of existence in which natural tendencies are thwarted and deprived of realization…. The young plant whose leaves are withering for lack of light is not nonexistent. It exists, but in an unhealthy or privative mode. The lame man is not nonexistent. He exists, but with a natural power partially unrealized. … This metaphysical objection is based upon the common assumption that existence is fully finished or complete. … [But] what is good is the fulfillment of being.

After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wild asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics: "why are such principles felt to be binding on me?" How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's subjective value scale? Because

the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man. The values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action.

There's more, but honestly, just read this (http://mises.org/story/2426#2) if you want an understanding of what natural rights advocates believe.

The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped … Why is the natural good? … [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and … the most empirical and … rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good — whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.
Confusion #1: That the evolution of an elephant adept at its task is somehow "good". The elephant is not good, it's simply successful. Success=/=Goodness. In fact, frequently in evolution the successful will be negative towards the success of its progeny or its own success later in life.

If I were to incorporate the ideas of your second link into this one it would state that the coming together of 2 molecules of hydrogen with one of oxygen is something that is good by the very natures of the molecules. There is no nature of molecules or animals, only that of matter and energy. Objects do not have natures in themselves, only matter and energy have "natures", and in fact could even be themselves controlled by laws rather than having natures of their own.
In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature.

Confusion #2: Humankind's mental evolution is the same as that of its physical evolution.

The basic point is this:

The eye was meant to see. It's in the "nature" of the eye to see. If it is really good at seeing, the eye is good. An eye that cannot see is tragically unfulfilled in its nature-ness.

The nature of man, horse, or elephant is more complex, because of the psychological and physical issues attached to them. However, just as the eye, when man, horse, or elephant fulfill their nature, they are "good." A human not able to fulfill his nature is just as bad as a blind eye or a deaf ear, in this POV.

The basic point is this:

The eye was meant to see.
Nope. The eye was not meant to do anything; proto-eyes just evolved into an eye. The only thing any organ is meant to do is increase the prevalence of the genes of its host in the gene pool of its species. Evolution does not create anything with a purpose, mutations simply occur and remain if they become prevalent. Purpose implies a creator to designate that purpose.

I don't think I need to address the rest of your post as it clearly follows from this error.

You've been struggling with the definition of 'subjective' for over 12 months now....
'Human Nature' is just an abstract term used to explain behavioral patterns generally shared by humans. ie. an objective concept.
All definitive terms are objectives.
As for your idea, no, not really.
You are a heinous idiot, and should not make any more threads.

This.

I perhaps wouldn't go so far as to call him a heinous idiot, but he really has been struggling with subjectivity/objective for a long, long time.

Nope. The eye was not meant to do anything; proto-eyes just evolved into an eye. The only thing any organ is meant to do is increase the prevalence of the genes of its host in the gene pool of its species. Evolution does not create anything with a purpose, mutations simply occur and remain if they become prevalent. Purpose implies a creator to designate that purpose.

I don't think I need to address the rest of your post as it clearly follows from this error.

The function of the eye is vision. Don't start playing semantics; nobody likes people like Rust.

This.

I perhaps wouldn't go so far as to call him a heinous idiot, but he really has been struggling with subjectivity/objective for a long, long time.

When you study Hume its really hard to think though things without extreme skepticism and questioning...

Besides, I fail to see the problem of initiating debate on a message board.....

The function of the eye is vision. Don't start playing semantics; nobody likes people like Rust.

You could have fooled me, you keep mentioning my name like a moron...

Also, nobody said that the function of the eye wasn't vision...

Also, nobody said that the function of the eye wasn't vision...

http://tgorourke.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/energizer20bunny20medium20web20view.jpg

Are you actually trolling, or are you completely oblivious to how much of a douchebag you are?

You think I'm a douche bag... Who gives a shit?

Are you trolling or do you really think your opinion matters?


Edit: I can't find any funny pictures about uppity Negroes. Could you help me? :(

There's a difference between function and purpose, drache.

There's a difference between function and purpose, drache.

Not as big a difference as you are trying to suggest. Yes, in some contexts it could imply a "creator", but saying that the purpose of having eyes is to see is a perfectly acceptable statement. Even saying "eyes were designed for sight" is perfectly acceptable, as the implication is that they were "designed by the mechanism of evolution".

It's a silly semantic argument that's wholly off-topic.

No, that's one possbile implication. Another possbile implication is that it was designed by a Creator.

It's extremely important to make sure they are talking about the same implication given that Encrypted Soldier's point rests on determining "goodness" objectively through a being fulfilling its "nature" or "purpose" (i.e. "However, just as the eye, when man, horse, or elephant fulfill their nature, they are "good."). If the implication is that of "god designed X" then purpose would be synonimous with "Gods plan". However if the implication is that of the results of evolution then it's quite important to point out how evolutionary theory deals with "success" not "good" or "bad", just as nshanin is doing.

This is not semantics. You're just a moron.

There's a difference between function and purpose, drache.

This is why I brought the question of human nature subjectivity up...

Because the function of human nature is to survive personally and help (without limiting yourself) others survive...Otherwords achieve potential...To live, so to speak.

However, the purpose (or meaning) is left up to the observer...But then again, if your purpose contradicts your function resulting in psychological abnormality and distress then how subjective is it?

Granted I can establish any meaning I choose to like Sartre says but what he fails to bring up is that by doing so I can effectively ruin my function (assuming I choose the wrong purpose, which brings into question it's subjectivity again)...

This is where my problem came from

Humanistic Ethics (Erich Fromm) - There is an objective method of acting on human nature (potential to actuality)

Being and Nothingness- There is no objective method, you create all meaning....


Now, Drache and whoever bitched at me earlier, do you see why the fuck I'm confused about this, both claim objectivity (Sartre claims subjectivity is objective) and both are contradictory............

No, that's one possbile implication. Another possbile implication is that it was designed by a Creator.

It's extremely important to make sure they are talking about the same implication given that Encrypted Soldier's point rests on determining "goodness" objectively through a being fulfilling its "nature" or "purpose" (i.e. "However, just as the eye, when man, horse, or elephant fulfill their nature, they are "good."). If the implication is that of "god designed X" then purpose would be synonimous with "Gods plan". However if the implication is that of the results of evolution then it's quite important to point out how evolutionary theory deals with "success" not "good" or "bad", just as nshanin is doing.

This is not semantics. You're just a moron.

And it's been clearly established that no one is referring to a "Creator", thus making this yet another exercise in Rust-style, pointless semantics.

And it's been clearly established that no one is referring to a "Creator", thus making this yet another exercise in Rust-style, pointless semantics.

Your an idiot.

Evolution doesn't "give" anything a purpose, only a function. ES is trying to derive purpose from function, which is impossible. Just because matter tends to arrange itself into the state of greatest entropy doesn't mean that that is its purpose. It's crucial to make the distinction. In other cases I would call this semantics, but this is the philosophy forum and word choice doesn't get any more important right here.

Anyway, ES, please do save this thread and tell us either that purpose and function are the same or that your link was wrong.

Your an idiot.

Evolution doesn't "give" anything a purpose, only a function. ES is trying to derive purpose from function, which is impossible. Just because matter tends to arrange itself into the state of greatest entropy doesn't mean that that is its purpose. It's crucial to make the distinction. In other cases I would call this semantics, but this is the philosophy forum and word choice doesn't get any more important right here.

Anyway, ES, please do save this thread and tell us either that purpose and function are the same or that your link was wrong.

Talking about entropy and the states of matter is not the same as talking about evolution, natural selection, and the purpose of various organs. Purpose can imply a creator, but it doesn't necessarily imply one. No one is talking about a creator, thus making this asinine.

This is pointless semantics that just convolutes and distracts from the topic at hand. But while we're at it: You spelled "you're" wrong.

Talking about entropy and the states of matter is not the same as talking about evolution, natural selection, and the purpose of various organs.
Are you saying that there's something immaterial about organs? That is the only way out of your hole because everything follows the laws of nature, including biology. There's nothing about organs that make them supernatural enough to merit a purpose (save the one that you yourself give them, but that's not the kind of purpose we're talking about).

This is pointless semantics that just convolutes and distracts from the topic at hand. But while we're at it: You spelled "you're" wrong.

It was sarcasm, take a look at the edit timestamp on post #8 for proof. :)

Talking about entropy and the states of matter is not the same as talking about evolution, natural selection, and the purpose of various organs. Purpose can imply a creator, but it doesn't necessarily imply one. No one is talking about a creator, thus making this asinine.

Purpose can only be predicated by a conscious being. Just because matter happened to rearrange itself (an organism) in accordance with other matter (the environment) doesn't mean a purpose was installed.

It just happens that my eye can see, it wasn't meant for vision (that would apply a preconception), it simply can function for greater perception...

For instance, the argument that the eye was meant only to fill up the empty holes in my head is just as valid as saying they were meant for vision.

Things have no meaning, they simply act in disorganized organization with the rest of the world and a conscious being (myself) goes "hmm....A and B fit together..Ah! A purpose"....It wasn't like nature had any principle of action, things simply came into being by chance.

Things don't have purposes, purpose implies intentional design, things just happen and for the sake of argument we just say nature made it that way. No, everything is chance.

So ignore my original posts, I've come to this relativist position.

And it's been clearly established that no one is referring to a "Creator", thus making this yet another exercise in Rust-style, pointless semantics.

You're a moron.

If what you say is true (i.e. that none is referring to a "Creator") then all the more reason why we should mention it since it seems Encrypted Soldier isn't taking that into consideration! Encrypted Soldier keeps talking about things having a "purpose" while trying to conclude how things get to be "good" or "bad" so reiterating the fact that evolution doesn't impost a purpose and only speaks of "success" seems like a good idea.

Even ignoring all of this, who the fuck are you to say whether it's pointless or not when the post in question wasn't even directed at you (thus you don't even have to read it, let alone partake on it and take away a point from it) in the first place? Do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up.

You're a moron.

If what you say is true (i.e. that none is referring to a "Creator") then all the more reason why we should mention it since it seems Encrypted Soldier isn't taking that into consideration! Encrypted Soldier keeps talking about things having a "purpose" while trying to conclude how things get to be "good" or "bad" so reiterating the fact that evolution doesn't impost a purpose and only speaks of "success" seems like a good idea.


As long as we've established that words such as "purpose" and "design" are not exclusive to the notion of a Creator or Designer entity, we can move on.

To elaborate on and correct what ES said: Every single part of the human eye is designed (yes, designed via the mechanism of evolution) to allow humans to see in the way it does. If a human's eye is damaged, then for all practical purposes, the eye may be considered bad. However, the concept of "the eye is good/bad" is completely subjective, as depending on someone's world view, failure and death could be the basis of the moral value of "good". The proper functioning of the human eye, however, is wholly objective.

In response to Mr Kitty's original question: Observable human actions and tendencies are objective. Interpretation of such actions/tendencies is subjective. If someone observes that 99/100 Americans are protective of children (based on some criteria defining the word "protective", of course), then that's an objective fact. If someone then puts a value on that observation (ie. good, bad, honorable, etc.) then it becomes subjective. Given that much of our nature isn't easily observable, I would think that at least some of your notions of human nature are subjective.

To elaborate on and correct what ES said: Every single part of the human eye is designed (yes, designed via the mechanism of evolution) to allow humans to see in the way it does.
Drache, are any of the chemical products in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN1_reaction) designed by the SN-1 mechanism? Does the mechanism allow the product to function the way it does (as far as physical properties go), or are the qualities of the product just an inevitability of the laws of physics? The mechanism (whether SN-1 or natural selection) does not "allow" for anything but is simply a "mechanism" that follows the laws of statistics, physics, and chemistry. There is no purpose in the mechanism, it just follows the rules.

If a human's eye is damaged, then for all practical purposes, the eye may be considered bad.
For practical purposes, yes. I don't think deriving the concept of natural rights is a practical purpose, do you?

However, the concept of "the eye is good/bad" is completely subjective, as depending on someone's world view, failure and death could be the basis of the moral value of "good". The proper functioning of the human eye, however, is wholly objective.
Well thank you for showing that the two are entirely unrelated.

Drache, are any of the chemical products in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN1_reaction) designed by the SN-1 mechanism? Does the mechanism allow the product to function the way it does (as far as physical properties go), or are the qualities of the product just an inevitability of the laws of physics? The mechanism (whether SN-1 or natural selection) does not "allow" for anything but is simply a "mechanism" that follows the laws of statistics, physics, and chemistry. There is no purpose in the mechanism, it just follows the rules.

Excuse me: The process* of evolution, not the mechanism.


For practical purposes, yes. I don't think deriving the concept of natural rights is a practical purpose, do you?

Immediately after saying "a broken eye can be considered a bad eye", I said that the value of "bad" is entirely subjective.


Well thank you for showing that the two are entirely unrelated.

K?

Excuse me: The process* of evolution, not the mechanism.
Then call it the process of nucleophilic substitution. Evolution designs nothing.

Immediately after saying "a broken eye can be considered a bad eye", I said that the value of "bad" is entirely subjective.
So you agree that natural rights can't be derived from function nor purpose, nor "goodness/badness" of living things. Great.

K?

The only rational way to agree with ES is to claim the opposite. You just showed how function has no correlation to purpose. ES used purpose to prove the idea of human rights, which he confused with function.

As long as we've established that words such as "purpose" and "design" are not exclusive to the notion of a Creator or Designer entity, we can move on.

...

However, the concept of "the eye is good/bad" is completely subjective, as depending on someone's world view, failure and death could be the basis of the moral value of "good". The proper functioning of the human eye, however, is wholly objective.


Which in essence proves what we've been saying all along!

Purpose is not the same as function, and thus it's quite prudent to remind Encrypted Solider of that when his point essentially rests on the argument that a being fulfilling a purpose is an objective proof of "good". It is precisely because evolution would speak of function and success, not purpose and "good", and because these things can be subjective that he's wrong.

Then call it the process of nucleophilic substitution. Evolution designs nothing.



Evolution is not analogous to nucleophilic substitution. A full chemical reaction is.

The end result of a given chemical reaction is designed to [insert chemical properties here]. The end result of evolution is designed to [insert organ's function here].

It's meaningless wordplay. We aren't saying there is necessarily a designer entity, thus it's a non-issue.

Evolution is not analogous to nucleophilic substitution. A full chemical reaction is.
SN-1 is a full chemical reaction. It starts with 2 reagents and ends with a unique product. It's as much of a natural process as natural selection, and evolution does not design organs any more than nucleophilic substitution (or "the end result" of nucleophilic substitution) designs chemicals.

The end result of a given chemical reaction is designed to [insert chemical properties here]. The end result of evolution is designed to [insert organ's function here].
NO! Natural laws are not designed to do anything, they simply follow the rules (or they are the rules themselves, there's really no way of knowing). A designer is something that consciously creates something, and these laws have no consciousness of their own. By claiming that natural laws are designing entities you are in effect inserting a designer entity into the laws of physics and biology.

SN-1 is a full chemical reaction. It starts with 2 reagents and ends with a unique product. It's as much of a natural process as natural selection, and evolution does not design organs any more than nucleophilic substitution (or "the end result" of nucleophilic substitution) designs chemicals.


NO! Natural laws are not designed to do anything, they simply follow the rules (or they are the rules themselves, there's really no way of knowing). A designer is something that consciously creates something, and these laws have no consciousness of their own. By claiming that natural laws are designing entities you are in effect inserting a designer entity into the laws of physics and biology.

Nucleophilic substitution is the mechanism by which many reactions form products, not a full reaction in and of itself. The proper analogy is: Evolution is to a full chemical reaction, as natural selection is to SN-1. You don't know chemistry, so don't skim a wikipedia article and think you know what you're talking about. This is off-topic anyways.

(From Merriam-Webster)
to design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

plan:
2 a: a method for achieving an end

Physical, natural laws define a method for the movement and interactions of atoms and molecules in order to achieve an end (in chemistry, usually this end is molecular stability and low energy). To say "X is designed" is to say that "X was constructed according to 'a method for achieving an end'".

By definition, saying that something was "designed" does not necessitate a Designer entity. If you're going to initiate a semantic circle-jerk, you should start by knowing what the fuck you're talking about. Your point that everything is the result of the basic physical, natural laws of the universe is a good point to make, but insisting that people are talking about God when they use theadjective "designed" is simply wrong.

(From Merriam-Webster)
to design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

plan:
2 a: a method for achieving an end

Physical, natural laws define a method for the movement and interactions of atoms and molecules in order to achieve an end (in chemistry, usually this end is molecular stability and low energy). To say "X is designed" is to say that "X was constructed according to 'a method for achieving an end'".



Lol, semantics.