Automaton

mturner: You have no idea what you are talking about.

Ongoing Lucidity

I think "assume" would be a better choice of noun in that statement. Recent developments in physics have given us some inclination that not all things are measurable.

Mackjoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Augustine:
[QB]Are atheists necessarily evolutionists?
There really isn't any other way to explain the universe from an atheist's point of view (at least none that I can see).

There are many ways to explain the universe, but what does that have to do with evolution?

[ So what is an atheist to do when he finds himself doubting the Great Darwin? It's not that his theory isn't sound or without proof, but this cannot be the only other explaination besides god.

True, but who is this Great Darwin you speak of?

If you think that to doubt evolution means you must "believe" in a creator your way wrong.

emphryio

Augustine:
I think everyone misunderstood your question and/or made incorrect assumptions. For what its worth, my answer is: I don't know of any other logical theory other than evolution. I bother posting this reply just so you hopefully won't feel 100 percent misunderstood.

emphryio

Actually you're really asking more of a science question I think. And you should avoid the philosophy section unless you just want to argue the defintion of words.

Jayhawker Soule

Best I can tell, yes.

mturner

**
Hi Bill;

I never said that non-belief in a deity precluded the belief in the the existence of the spiritual. Where did you get that from? If you go back and re-read my post, carefully this time, you'll see that you got it back to front, and that what I actually said was that Materialism/Physicalism, (often referred to here as 'metaphysical naturalism'), denies the existence of the spiritual, and that the denial of the existence of the spiritual entails and includes the denial of the existence of God.

pax,

mturner

Malaclypse the Younger

As turtonm noted, there is a difference between metaphysical naturalism (MN) and atheism.

There is nothing analytical in either position, though, that compels evolution per se. However, MN does tend to imply belief in science, and science shows that nonteleological evolution is by far the best explanation for the evidence of both present-day organisms and the fossil record.

It is certainly logically possible for some sort of intelligent design or even creation to have occurred; I can think of several obvious scientific tests that would confirm such an hypothesis (such as the presence of horizontal transfer, or the complete lack of a fossil record), but it appears they are not the case.

hezekiah jones

It's suprising to hear a self-described pantheist, or panentheist I believe it was, propose such a characterization.

Whether one adopts the position that "all is god" or "all is in god" it seems to me that denying the so-called spiritual hardly entails the consequent denial of god.

"All is god" and "all is in god" by themselves are trivial observations that have little, if anything, to do with subjective metaphysical notions of "spirit."

madmax2976

You wouldn't look so foolish if you didn't blatantly contradict yourself like this. You said:

Then you whine because Bill rightly sets you straight and you say:

But you did say:

So somehow physicalism, which is indistinguishable from atheism, doesn't allow for the spirtual, but atheism does allow for the spiritual, even though it is inseparable from physicalism.