Sure, a “hijack”. Gotcha.
We are born into a universe that exists. It would be much more difficult if it was otherwise. Thus far, no death has resulted in the universe ceasing to existing. I suppose Czarcasm could be the lynch pin to hold it all together but I discourage you from telling him that, lest it go to his head.
We don’t know. And neither do you.
As to why it matters… what arrogance to suggest that atheists put less value (than believers) on life and loved ones they leave behind.
Atheists aren’t able to love, didn’t you know?
Me, I post on the SDMB, because at least I know that anything I put on here will never, ever be lost and I’ll be immortal. 
Look-if you want to continue this conversation about why atheists bother to do anything when they have nothing to look forward to after death, start a new thread and we’ll continue, otherwise I’ve got some serious “Baby Raping For Atheism” duties I’ve got to catch up on.
This at first confounding question is easily answerable once you realize the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance and how scientists, being human, are no more immune to it than anyone else.
I also would venture the proposition that it only having been acceptable in the last few decades, and then only in Western liberal societies, for a scientist to deny religious belief, that the degree of self-reported religious belief among scientists throughout history might be… a wee bit high. There have always been consequences to denying magical faith, from being dragged out and burned alive to getting frowny faces at cocktail parties.
<briefly hovers finger over “Delete This Post” button, thinks better of it>
there is a god!!!
Why did he chose to NOT delete my post?
Miller works in mysterious ways.
Those newsletters won’t write themselves.
Please, stop it with the “hijack”.
While I acknowledge the sincerity of your belief that science and religion are incompatible, I would point out that you have (still) produced neither argument nor evidence in support of it; it’s an article of faith for you, and you display a distinct disinclination to engage in any kind of critical examination of it. The hypothesis that apparently religious scientists are not truly religious but are merely coerced into pretending to be religious is useful to you because it supports your faith, and for that reason you see no need to adduce any argument or evidence in favour of that hypothesis either; it’s justified by your faith.
In short, you’re offering me your unevidenced and unargued faith in the incompatibility of religion and science, supported by your unevidenced and unargued hypothesis that scientists who present as religious believers do so either because they are coerced to do so or becaus they are suffering “cognitive dissonance” (by which you seem to mean just this: they do not share your faith).
This position may satisify you but you can see, can’t you, that someone who doesn’t start out already sharing your faith will find it unpersuasive?
Emphasis mine.
I don’t think atheism means what you think it means. Atheism =/= nihilism.
FTR, I am not an atheist (anymore), I am a Christian. But neither my pastor nor my Bible has ever tried to tell me that death wasn’t real, just that it wasn’t necessarily permanent.
Oh come on, that’s not what the reincarnative religions say at all. Buddhism and Hinduism alike both claim that your actions in this life absolutely do matter, even if the religion itself was created to keep the peasants stuck in their own caste (Hinduism) or fixate on the end goal being spiritual oblivion (Buddhism). It’s fair to disagree with or even poke fun at religious silliness, but please get your facts straight first.
Nothing ultimately dies until the Heat Death of the Universe, but we’ve got approx. 10[sup]100[/sup] years to worry about that.
If he hasn’t already, I’m sure Czarcasm will tell you that atheists do indeed volunteer in soup kitchens, or something similar.
How would you personally know the universe exists AFTER you die?
That’s exactly my point.
- It existed before I did.
- It hasn’t ceased to exist after anyone else has died.
- I’ve got no reason to believe my death is going to be different than anyone elses death.
By the way, what evidence do you have for an afterlife?
So, it’s just a hunch. I mean, no real proof, an unprovable belief.
You know NOW 1, 2, and 3.
I’d love to know how you would, after your demise, ascertain the validity of such statements. If something cannot be proven, it isn’t true, is it?
Nope, sorry, I don’t accept your label. Whether I believe in something or not (or whether you do) has absolutely no bearing on its truth. The incompatibility of religion and reason (I prefer to express the dichotomy this way, because you don’t really need science to disprove most of religion’s tenets) is factual, and you can’t use the rhetorical trick of reducing it to a “belief” I just happen to hold.
I could flood this board with “argument and evidence,” as you term it, but it wouldn’t cause the scales to magically drop from the eyes of a single believer (what are the chances of anyone saying, “Hey, wow, the magical beliefs that my parents indoctrinated me with and have provided me comfort for my whole life are actually unfounded hooey, and I’ve been crazy to hold them!”).
In point of fact, I have no “faith” in ANYTHING. Faith is the belief that something is true despite the absence of confirming evidence. I define “true” as “supported by evidence.” Therefore, I have no faith. Godless heathen!
By the way, as one little piece of “evidence,” I would cite the Catholic Church’s burning of Bruno at the stake and its persecution of Galileo–for saying that the earth revolved around the sun–for which it didn’t apologize, or admit that it had been wrong about the heliocentric model, until 1994. So if you were a good Catholic, until then, you would have had to profess that the sun revolved around the earth and that Bruno and Galileo were heretics
Do you understand the difference between “evidence” and “proof”? I’ve got tons more evidence for my “unprovable belief” than you do for yours. I’ve got billions that died without causing the end of the world, let alone the universe.
Show me Heaven, someone who has been to Heaven, or the god that created heaven. Show me your evidence.
It might at least help us to understand why you believe something which, at first blush, looks fairly improbable.
Oh, right. “I have my reasons for beleiving what I do, but I don’t expect them to convince anyone else, so I refuse to share them.” Now, where have I heard that before? If your reasons won’t convince anyone but you, it’s because (a) you are gifted with insight and understanding of a rare order, denied to the common run of humanity, or (b) your reasons are not very convincing. Which do you think an impartial observer would judge to be more likely?
I’m not sure why you assume that no religious believer could be persuaded by evidence or argument to abandon their beliefs, given that examples abound of former believers who have done precisely that.
Well, you’ve offered us a number of beliefs for which you have offered either no evidence at all, or evidence which is simply derisory. From our point of view - looking at the evidence - there’s not a lot to distinguish your beliefs from articles of faith, is there?
As one commited to reason and logic, you do know that that’s a non-sequitur, don’t you? And as one commited to the search for truth, you do know that the latter claim is factually untrue, don’t you? And as one commited to reason and logic, you do know that even if the latter claim were true it would not show that religion, as such, is incompatible with reason, don’t you?