You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, yet you stubbornly cling to the same STUpid nonsense like a small child. Absolute nothingness would be the most stable state of all because there would be absolutely nothing to change it. Explain which "laws of physics" would create everything from nothing and how.
I disagree. Science is about the quest for knowledge, wherever it may lead. Secular humanism is about empathy and getting along for mutual benefit. Only religions can be characterized as "edifices built by Man to shield him from the terror of his finitude and inevitable end." Excellent choice of words, by the way. As another poster adroitly observed: atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That conclusion is wrong, in my humble opinion. To most Christians it's not important to know that Mother Theresa was a Catholic. Not knowing that she was is not the same thing as not knowing facts about Christianity in general. Catholics may not know how many baptist association there are in the US, but that does not not make them illiterate when it comes to Christianity. I wonder how atheists would do well on the following questions: 1. How many books are there in the Bible? 2. Who wrote the most books in the New Testament? 3. Can you name the ten commandments? etc....
Science should be about a quest for knowledge, but why is it that so many scientists tend to ignore the and censor those who disagree with them? For example, Michael Behe, a PHD in molecular biology, writes that the complexity of life forms cannot be explained by Darwinian Evolution. Yet, why is it that Darwinian Evolution is still considered scientific? In my view, scientists of today tend to hide behind numbers to support their position. They are not likely to draw their own conclusions after their own research. Darwinian evolution is one example how so many scientists could claim to agree with it without being able to explain it, much less to show how it's true.
Because irreducible complexity is a bogus argument that is easily addressed by natural selection, and because Behe has an overriding agenda cloaked in "science." Just because someone says something, doesn't necessarily make it so, especially when it is readily disuptable and has already been discredited.
The common denominator of those is that it is Man's definitions that make any of those perspectives "true" or "good". What can be considered knowledge, that which science quests for, is defined by science itself. Same for the other perspectives with their messier rule sets; they write their own rules. Atheism makes its own leap to faith when it, extrapolating from the progress of science which continues to explain the universe farther out and farther back without finding a creator, concludes that there will never be a creator found. I'll agree with extraordinarily improbable, but not with never. Why should I? It's no skin off my teeth. That tiny, tiny bit of uncertainty has no effect on my ability to live and get along. I do wonder why others cannot tolerate it, but more so why they can't tolerate it in others than in themselves. Of course, I'd make the same argument to the insistent deity believers, but mostly only to those who have to deny useful concepts like evolution. If they keep it "to themselves" then, again, I can live with the uncertainty.
It would only seem clever to a biased, closed-minded, C- brain like you who can't even acknowledge the simple fact that atheism for some is an obsessive agenda.
The question is, where does one draw the line without additional and compelling information? There are countless half-baked theories about any number of things, not just limited to religion. Until they are absolutely disproven, are we expected to hold them in our minds as distinct possibilities? Can you imagine the mental clutter? It becomes a question of materiality. And just because the idea of a creator is somewhat material in your life does not mean that the issue carries equal or similar weight for someone else. Someone may firmly believe in unicorns. (Did you watch this week's episode of The Middle?) Speaking for myself, I tend to disregard matters for which there is no evidence and which have no immediate or expected impact on my life. You may accept my disregard as disbelief because they are the same for all intents and purposes in this regard. If genuine evidence to the contrary presents itself, then I will certainly consider the matter again. But until then, it remains a nonissue.
Well, Behe does not just say something. He provides *evidence* for his claims. And keep in mind, he is a molecular biologist. One of the things he says in his "Darwin's Black Box" books is that it's one thing to present evolution on a logical level (which is being taught in the public schools) but it's another to explain it biologically and molecularly. For example, it makes sense how a bicycle, motorcycle, car and jet are examples of technological evolution. But for darwinian evolution to be true, one must show how the bicycle factory evolved (using random chance) to attach motorcycle parts (on the way between a bicycle and a motorcycle). Furthermore, Darwinian evolutionist must show WHY a certain part, which supposedly was not needed for the original organism was not discarded during the millions of years because it was needed for a mutated organism. Evolutionists want to have it both ways. The nature is so efficient, that organism that have useless features discard those features when they are not need. Yet, what made these features undiscarded in the 'missing link' species?
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about and your argument is nonsensical. No one said that nature is efficient. It is painstakingly slow. You show no indication of even being familiar with the concept of natural selection. Please continue your exchange with someone else. I will no longer be responding to your posts. Thank you.