i suppose your right... but.. really?... i mean , do they not see what religious zealots will do with shiat like this?... Didnt they see what they used the Loch Ness Monster for?!?
Someday, spacecricket, when your grandchildren ask you "what were you doing when they proved the Higgs Boson?" you can confidently reply "Writing a check to the 700 Club"
It has plenty of meaning to me... Millions upon millions of years of "accidents" have been leading up to this, everything had to be just right for life to even begin, and then on top of that evolution had to follow a perfect path as to develop mankind, and then on top of that all of my ancestors had to come together at the right moment to procreate and eventually create me. Yes there is some faith involved in athiesm (for me at least), arguably even more than in theism. With theism one must believe in the creation all at once (or an adaption of a similar event) but with athiesm you have to have faith that every "accident" happened with perfect timing to lead to you. Thinking like this gives my life plenty of meaning; I would not want to let those billions of years of "accidents" down.
While ignorance may seem amusing, i really found this to be disturbing. Religion is nothing but a lever to pull society and humanity into a dark pit (*)(*)(*)(*) hole.
Your view of evolution is still a human-chauvinistic view, it seems to me, as though we were some kind of goal for it to achieve. I don't see where faith enters into a fact-based view of life developing for millions and millions of years (it is ever and constantly developing), and bam! here we are today, a part of this grand process. I do like the bit quoted from Carl Sagan in a Symphony of Science song, though, which says: Every cell is a triumph of natural selection. Likewise, we all are "triumphs" of natural selection, descendants of a line of successful organisms stretching right on back to the very beginning. Awe-inspiring, yes, but where's the faith? It's what our DNA and every other scrap of evidence available to mankind today points to. It's something Charles Darwin and a few others at least of his time realised even without the benefits of genetic knowledge or today's plethora of fossil evidence! He went by observation of modern specimens alone and still arrived at that conclusion based on the results. I think that makes evolution by natural selection pretty darned powerful.
true, which is why rational thinkers accept the fact that they do not know the answer. believers and faithful people everywhere are considered irrational, simply because they use the same logic that atheists use. an atheist uses nothing, as the basis for existence, while religious people use nothing in regards to facts. same story, different story teller. us humans are quite limited, despite our efforts to learn. one thing we do not know is how the universe got here, or if there is even a why? entwined in that. without knowledge of how or why, meaning is unattainable, as meaning is meaningless without a person to understand it, just as silent as a tree is in a forest when it falls with nobody around to hear it. if there is a god, he doesnt matter. why? because nobody knows about him. the only 'god' we know of is our own creation of a higher power, that we can only justify with the hypothetical assertion that A god is possible, which is how we have ended up with so many culturally manifested versions of a 'god' or 'gods' since civilized man first reared its dirty head. when it comes to fear, people are usually dishonest, which is why people feel the need to deceive themselves, but fortunately, most people know. most people know that they do not know.
Bollocks. The way you describe atheists, they sound like nihilists or something, though maybe I just need you to clarify what you mean by "nothing as the basis for existence." Far as I'm concerned, atheist is a very broad term coined by theists in order to describe anyone who rejects gods of any sort, on the basis that there is a lack of evidence and no compelling reason to believe in any. How do you arrive at "nothing" from a simple rejecting of god(s)? There quite obviously is "something," for here we are.
i consider atheists to be different from agnostics. agnostics believe, to quote you, "There quite obviously is "something,"", but they admit they do not know what that something is. to them it may simply be that they understand that there must be an answer, not necessarily that there must be a god or creator. atheists believe, in my opinion, that there is not a god or creator, or even anything unexplainable about the existence of the universe. they, like me, admit to not knowing the answer, but they are working under the assumption that something can come from nothing, which i disagree with. by asserting the notion that everything is explainable, one cannot also assert an unexplainable notion, and still be considered rational. given that we do not know, we have to accept both scenarios: (A) there is no god. or (B) there is a god. by choosing one over the other, you abandon logic, but by accepting both, you abandon any meaning derived from either possible outcome. by believing you gain meaning, but by thinking rationally you become a nihilist. a true agnostic is a nihilist. an atheist is simply religiously anti-god, as an irrational faith-based notion of any kind could be considered religious. i hope that clears things up.
Wait, which group of people deny scientific fact and evidence just because they think they are right no matter what?
atheists are no different than religious people. both have no idea what they are talking about. both fall victim to their primitive flaws, built into the innately irrational mind of the animal that we are. don't waste your time debating or arguing, everyone knows that there is nothing to know. there are 3 facts that will stop you from finding further facts: 1. the universe is here 2. a universe being here, doesn't make a bit of sense 3. fear-driven explanations are expected, but entirely lacking of value or substance fear is what drives people to know, because not knowing is, well, scary. so...how bout we all, on this forum, make up a new explanation for the universe? do what has been done so many times before...imagine something to make us feel better. my suggestion: the universe was created by a field of flowers and tall grass next to a beautiful river, with teddy bears and virgins frolicking about. they all got tired of the ignorant bliss and decided to create the exact opposite.
Cool avatar southern man. No wonder atheist are arrogant having the theists as counterpart. It's just to easy, as proven by the OP.
If they find the MSSM Higgs particles (MSSM is a theory which has five Higgs particles), does that mean polytheism is right?
