Fine, you don’t like my argument. Are you capable of deconstructing it or are you following the same lazy path as the people who just scream “idiot!”, while accusing me of being lazy about it. I actually went to some effort to show why I thnk that way. Haven’t seen anything but dismissives and perjoratives coming back the other way.
So-trolling, then?
Atheism doesn’t even *address *the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, let alone posit beliefs concerning them.
Science certainly does, and that’s the foundation of belief for most athiests.
Could you please support that with a cite? And this time, could you use whole sentences?
Science posits theories, which it then tests. Beliefs aren’t tested; they’re believed.
So science is a religion? Is religion a smile on a dog too, Edie? And no, it’s not the “foundation of belief” for most atheists any more than oxygen is a foundation of belief. And you’re scrambling.
I already did post a very quick explanation of why it’s wrong: atheism isn’t a set of beliefs about anything, it’s the rejection of one belief. Most theistic religions assert that a god created the universe; atheism doesn’t say how the universe came into being, it just implies that gods didn’t do it because they don’t exist. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of the universe other than rejecting the existence of gods, and it doesn’t say anything about the purpose of existence other than the implication that if there is a purpose, it doesn’t come from gods because there aren’t any. In between calling you “idiot,” I think a couple of people already addressed these points, and if you’ve seen this discussion many times in the past, shouldn’t you be aware of this already? I’ll grant you that most atheists are also skeptics and there’s a strong link between atheism and scientific explanations of the universe and the development of life, but those things aren’t required or dictated by atheism.
Could you actually provide some sort of counter argument, in full sentences, rather than a lazy perjorative dismissal?
And you’re seriously asking me to provide citation that most atheists accept a science based explanation of the Universe? Can you provide any citations that there are large numbers of athiests out there that both reject the supernatural and science at the same time?
Just speaking for myself here, anything I may know regarding the cause and nature of the universe is based on known and published fact, not belief. Do you beleive in electricity? Does my electric coffeemaker run on my belief that it makes coffee? Meanwhile, discussing the ‘purpose’ of the universe makes no sense in this context. What is the purpose of, say, hydrogen?
Well, science certainly addresses the nature of the universe, by observing its natural characteristics. Study of the cause of the universe seems currently stalled at the Big Bang (which persists because it fits with the observed natural characteristics of the universe), but the cause of the Big Bang is still in the hypothesis stage. I don’t know of any scientists who are advancing theories (let alone seeking believing followers) on the purpose of the universe…
So, basically, you’re both wrong, but Chimera is wronger.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a scientific paper or study or statement or, really, anything, on the purpose of the universe.
And I guess I’m saying that a negative belief about one thing is not proof that anyone has zero beliefs about anything. Atheism as usually presented is a science based understanding of the Universe that does not rely on the supernatural. As such, I have a great deal of respect for that belief system. What I don’t respect is the militant faction which is hate/anger based and willfully ignorant that they’re not all that different than the militant anger based factions of any other religion.
Because there really is no “purpose” to the Universe, other than to exist.
Much like there is no “purpose” to life other than to exist.
You are saying stupid and/or ignorant things, and your cites(such as they are) do not support your statements. You’ve already admitted to trolling in this thread, so I think that you are getting more than you deserve in responses.
Sure sure, I’m so injured by your valueless non-responses. :rolleyes:
So why, when told that athiesm doesn’t address the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, would you say…
Are you even paying attention to what you’re typing?
This really cracked me up.
This is beyond dumb.
I’m glad my atheist book of dogma is a loose-leaf notebook, since you seem to think my atheistic religious belief is what the latest paper says.
Scientific theories and “beliefs” if you feel you must call them that are provisional. That’s the opposite of faith.
Atheists can believe in reincarnation. Atheists can believe in fairies. Atheists can believe in both the Big Bang and Steady State theories. Atheists can believe that aliens seeded the earth. Hell, atheists can believe that aliens built the pyramids if they are stupid. The only commonality is that atheists don’t believe in any gods.
Atheists no more have to believe in any specific scientific theory than fundamentalist evangelicals have to be Republicans.
Atheism isn’t a “negative belief,” it’s the lack of a belief. This is another thing that’s been discussed a million times, and I referred to it earlier in the thread, too. And I think this comment kind of proves my point: a religion is a system of related ideas. Atheism isn’t a series of idea. It’s one idea. You don’t have to have zero beliefs about anything to be an atheist. You can adopt a materialist outlook, and many atheists do, but it’s not required. If you belong to a religion like Christianity or Islam, you might not accept all the doctrine, but you’re at least subscribing to a few basic ideas: there’s a creator God who can communicate with people and has ideas about how they are supposed to live ethically, there’s an afterlife, things like that. Atheism doesn’t have a message about how to live an ethical life and it doesn’t say what happens when we die. Earlier, you said that was an important issue.
You don’t respect people who are willfully ignorant of the argument you’re having trouble making. Got it. Meanwhile, I think it’s kind of annoying that you asked me to explain why you were wrong in more detail and then ignored the entire explanation except for the one reference to science.