You're not kidding The End. First you come out with a piece of pseudoscience in the guise of a question , then close down your mind to everything but your own personal beliefs. That is not a particularly intelligent thing to do. If you're not careful, next you'll find yourself like another on this board, making crazy remarks and constantly linking back to them, as if in some other world , where that sort of bizarre ritual is considered a form of argument. Saying science is not qualified for metaphysics is like saying brain surgery is not qualified for first aid. Philosophy is first aid. It is for metaphsics. Whether the philosophy being used is qualified or not is a different thing.
Yes I've got the message. Everyone who doesn't go with your wacky nonsense is a troll. I'd expect no better from you. First you insist marriam webster , a dictionary, in which words get constantly redefined and meanings expanded, definitively states what an atheist is. Then having done that, you ask me what an atheist is. As I don't recognize how mirriam webster is defining what I understand , why are you asking me what an atheist is? How is one of your own chosen definitions "a disbelief in the existence of deity" anything to do with the specific denial you keep claiming atheists have? Then again I should know better than to ask you a reasonable question. Seriously Jem, instead of attacking everything with your same old tired worn out bs, it's time you got a clue.
So you're saying because all the multitudinous complex reactions present in the universe are not fully accounted for, and because there may be controversy over one scientific hypothesis in particular: that means entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, is hostile to big bang, galactic systems and to a planet teaming with life!? Contention over how entropy can be quantified within a single hypothesis does not render the laws of physics void you know. That does not make the second law of thermodynamics some kind of disadvantage to the universe and life on earth in general . Your suggestion that it does is the over simplification . Well there you are, in your own words. Yes of course great philosophers are wrong about a lot of things. One of the greatest, Bertrand Russell ,was expressing that very thing. "science agrees some things - philosophers none"; philosophers get it wrong. It is only with science can wrong philosophy be agreed upon as being proven wrong. In regard to Karl Popper, again the only way scientists could have agreed about falsifiability, is if it was to be anything more than just a philosophical concept. Falsifiability would have to be practically demonstrable . It was. It is. Karl Popper was articulating the scientific method..
Are you really trying to say the laws of physics don't apply in or to the universe. Are you being serious? Dark Energy and Dark Matter , and macroscopic quantum effects are difficult to reconcile, not the laws of physics. Why exactly would want you hold off deciding whether the universe is entropic when the laws of physics, specifically in form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, prove exactly how the universe is entropic. There is nothing known of in the universe violating that law. I assume you've fallen for the creationists' famous tactic of trying to argue the cart before the horse.
No surprise you reject major dictionaries. I noticed you did not have the guts to define your own atheism. Even though you troll the shit out of these boards as the atheist who states there is no God. So lets try again... show some backbone...... Do you state there is no God?
Atheism: No proof of god is atheism. There's your definition, so now by defination we're all atheist. Don't you also troll the shit out of the boards also.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Richard Dawkins
Who has called me a troll... only stu and sock puppets. at least a dozen people have called stu a troll and disingenous. How is your definition different from an agnostic? : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic