From nothing, Reason...

Originally posted by David C
Maybe I'm just too dense to understand (not a stretch, as you know), but why is a "mechanistic materialism" viewpoint necessarily bad? Can you provide any details on a theistic perspective of "life as we know it" that doesn't require ad-hoc arguments relying on untestable supernatural axioms?

There is no commentary regarding the value of MM, only whether there exists any atheistic viewpoints which are not relying on the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since you are agnostic regarding the material world, your view cannot be considered atheistic.

Huh? What exactly do you take to be the necessary conditions for considering some view to be atheistic?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh? What exactly do you take to be the necessary conditions for considering some view to be atheistic?

It isn't his?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

I will here take this as ...[text shortened]... sts if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?

I am an athiest but not a biologist, or even a scientist, so I have had to read up on mechanistic materialism as I was previously unfamiliar with the term. My understanding now is that it is a school of thought which states that all living organisms can be explained in terms of the physical properties of their components. I don't see why this is in any way at odds with evolution, could you explain why you think it is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since you are agnostic regarding the material world, your view cannot be considered atheistic. Maybe you can get in on the next game?

Your take on reality is unique and (while worthy of a whole other thread) causes one to ponder how reality is determined.

I'm agnostic regarding whether the world even began, or whether it is eternal. I'm also an atheist. So, if this cannot be considered atheistic, then you don't understand what atheism is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is no commentary regarding the value of MM, only whether there exists any atheistic viewpoints which are not relying on the same.

Seems to me that there is a value judgement via inference, since it is clear what you think of atheism...but OK. How about you humour me and take a shot at the second question?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

I will here take this as ...[text shortened]... sts if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?

There is one flaw in your oinkment: The universe and the solar system and the planet earth existed long before reasoning ability came about on the earth so are you suggesting reasoning power now has negated all of evolution that happened before reasoning power came about? Our reasoning power has the ability to reach into the past and change what already has happened?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh? What exactly do you take to be the necessary conditions for considering some view to be atheistic?

According to bbarr, he is agnostic toward the existence of material; therefore, until he comes to some conclusion regarding reality, he cannot formulate any idea regarding the origin of that thing we call the physical world.

As the saying goes, the world is our stage, upon which we are acting out our choices. Since we are discussing the formation of that stage, bbarr's uncertainty regarding the stage's existence precludes him from discussing the atheistic (or any other) viewpoint of the same.

Originally posted by Ian68
I am an athiest but not a biologist, or even a scientist, so I have had to read up on mechanistic materialism as I was previously unfamiliar with the term. My understanding now is that it is a school of thought which states that all living organisms can be explained in terms of the physical properties of their components. I don't see why this is in any way at odds with evolution, could you explain why you think it is.

Ian, we are in the first stage of a bigger argument. Any valuation of MM is reserved for the latter phases of the argument. Right now, we are simply determining whether there exists any other atheistic viewpoint which can explain the existence of the natural world besides MM.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm agnostic regarding whether the world even began, or whether it is eternal. I'm also an atheist. So, if this cannot be considered atheistic, then you don't understand what atheism is.

I understand it well enough, thank you. As already stated, we are assuming the reality of material and clarifying whether the existence of the material can be explained by an atheistic viewpoint in terms other than MM.

Originally posted by David C
Seems to me that there is a value judgement via inference, since it is clear what you think of atheism...but OK. How about you humour me and take a shot at the second question?

There will be a valuation at the end. We're simply making sure there aren't any atheistic viewpoints which explain the material world without using MM.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is one flaw in your oinkment: The universe and the solar system and the planet earth existed long before reasoning ability came about on the earth so are you suggesting reasoning power now has negated all of evolution that happened before reasoning power came about? Our reasoning power has the ability to reach into the past and change what already has happened?

In due time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to bbarr, he is agnostic toward the existence of material; therefore, until he comes to some conclusion regarding reality, he cannot formulate any idea regarding the origin of that thing we call the physical world.

As the saying goes, the world is our stage, upon which we are acting out our choices. Since we are discussing the formatio ...[text shortened]... 's existence precludes him from discussing the atheistic (or any other) viewpoint of the same.

I think I see what you mean (maybe). But you should really be more careful with your terminology. At face value, you are really confused and don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It's also not clear what this thread is supposed to examine. In the first post, you were discussing "life as we know it". Now it seems you're babbling on about something related to cosmological origins. I really don't have any idea what you're really trying to target, and I would bet I am not alone on that. I think the main problem is that you are being very sloppy with your words and you are confusing different concepts. Clarification is needed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to bbarr, he is agnostic toward the existence of material; therefore, until he comes to some conclusion regarding reality, he cannot formulate any idea regarding the origin of that thing we call the physical world.

As far as I can tell, agnostic merely means that he has not found a rational basis for making a
definitive determination about the existence of material -- whether it actually exists or whether
it is a product of the mind or whatever other options exist.

However, that doesn't preclude his contemplating the physical world itself. That is, he can
contemplate it conditionally -- if the world is real, then... or if the world is an illusion, then... --
and have rational conclusions which can be examined and explored.

And, in any event, it doesn't seem inconsistent that he could doubt the existence of the material
and still conclude that there is/is not a God, given that doubting the material would not include
God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
As far as I can tell, agnostic merely means that he has not found a rational basis for making a
definitive determination about the existence of material -- whether it actually exists or whether
it is a product of the mind or whatever other options exist.

However, that doesn't preclude his contemplating the physical world itself. That is, he can
contem ...[text shortened]... hat there is/is not a God, given that doubting the material would not include
God.

Nemesio

I am not challenging his atheism on that point. I am saying his atheism does not apply to my assertion, as the assertion is based on the reality of the physical world (life as we know it) and further, that all atheistic explanations for that physical world take on varying forms of mechanisitic materialism. Since he isn't too sure that the physical world is even there, his perspective would be a separate consideration.

This consideration is for all of those people who take the physical world at least at face value (assume that it exists) and yet explain the existence of that world without a reliance on God.

Is this clear enough?