When I think about that, I just remember the things I like about being alive, like being able to drink water and pet dogs — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Sounds like a good approach to me!

Sure it is. My personal opinion and nothing else — dimosthenis9

I was merely typing about my disagreement with your personal opinion, that's all.

Normal people are damn boring. — dimosthenis9

I think this is an imbalanced viewpoint as well. 'Boring,' is not a label that should ever be applied objectively to any individual or group. 'Boring,' is always a subjective label and is nothing more than a circumstantial opinion. I find the vast majority of all hip hop music I have ever heard 'boring,' but I know many general music fans would fire pelters at me for such a viewpoint. I find a lot about philosophy boring. I could give you many more personal examples but it's just really personal taste and is mostly momentary and can even reflect mood at the time, etc.

What I think is essential in a thread like this, is the more important effects of stigma/fear/shame etc associated with mental health. These are the real enemies in the area. This is what must stop.
There MUST BE NO SHAME, NO ONE SHOULD BE SCARED TO SPEAK ABOUT AND NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE STIGMATISED due to any struggle with mental health. This has to be the goal of any decent, ethical, humane society, in my humble opinion.
People must be able to discuss their psychology with those who can help them develop ways to cope and turn potential disadvantage into something more positive. We must reach a stage where revealing and discussing mental health issues is as common as revealing and discussing that you regularly get indigestion problems.

Discussing and revealing your condition to others is healthy in my opinion.
I don't subscribe to 'misery loves company,' and subscribe more to 'a problem shared is a problem halved.' I have my own ways of dealing with dark thoughts.
I find it interesting that some of the greatest battles individual humans face are internal, either due to their own 'internal wiring/chemistry/biology/ or based on trying to make personal sense of what they witness or experience or read about during their lives.
I am mostly able to defeat dark thoughts with stuff like "well, things could be worse, I could be........'
Or "Well, if I kill myself, something really cool will happen a few days later like aliens will visit us or something and I will f****** MISS IT"
I know such does not work for 'severe depression' or such conditions as bipolar but I think it's important to just be there for others if they need you to be.
I say all power to you, in finding aspects of depression, which can, in your own way, be less negative than the 100% negativity normally associated with such words.
I have heard Stephen Fry talk online a great deal, about being bipolar and that in the final analysis, it makes him who he is today and he wonders if he would have had the good life he has had overall, if he were not bipolar.

It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction. — Gregory A

Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.

Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.

There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.

If atheism is the non-belief in god/s, then it can't specify any one religion to challenge. As its position is to not accept the concept of any/all gods. Atheism vs Christianity is not valid for example — Gregory A

So for you, logically, the word "All" is not a 'term of totality,' a simple way of including each and every individual example. If I say I am against ALL racists, does that mean (according to your logic) that I forfeit the right to argue with any of them? Atheists speaking against Christianity is completely valid and to say it is not, is pure sophistry, and it smacks of something the logic of Donald Trump and his followers, would try to peddle. You show yourself in a poor light sir.

Dawkins would believe in Nature and consequently needs to 'believe' that a god does not exist. Making it impossible to for him to 'honestly' expect evidence of God to be produced. As a scientist he can't really argue much against theism as it represents 'belief' in god/s, not scientific arguments in their favor. He also can't argue against theism from a sociological viewpoint because theism is not a religion. Dawkins would be a conservative, so wouldn't be politically motivated if atheism is another element of the Left. Dawkins therefor can only be an agent of destruction looking for a way to enhance the fame he already has. And as there is little aclaim to be had taking on obsure religions he mostly attacks the god of the Bible — Gregory A

This is just more of the same flawed logic. You are trying to scratch at Dawkins armour and try to get at him and all you have is a sponge. You are wasting your time, but sponge away, all you want, every time you type about him, you make his armour look better and better to me.
Dawkins hates Maggie Thatcher and everything she stood for he has said so on camera. He does not discuss politics much but I doubt very much that he is a conservative.
Put up or shut up sir, provide actual quotes from him to support your claims about him.

The following quotes from The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant may be of interest:

P77 (the year was 1860): The whig party had ceased to exist before I had an opportunity of exercising the privilege of casting a ballot; the Know-Nothing party had taken its place, but was on the wane; and the Republican party was in a chaotic state and had not yet received a name. It had no existence in the slave states except at points on the borders next to free states.

Up to the Mexican war there were few out and out abolitionists.......But the great majority of people at the North, where slavery did not exist were opposed to the institution.

P79: For there were people who believed in the 'divinity' of human slavery, as there are now people who believe Mormonism and Polygamy to be ordained by the Most High. We forgive them for entertaining such notions, but forbid their practice.

It's a very good book to read in light of the OP.

Precisely because of the science I believe in them. — EugeneW

I don't find this convincing but I will take your word for it.

Im not dogmatic about it — EugeneW

This contradicts your claim that you are 100% convinced gods exist. 100% belief is dogmatic unless you only accept facts that are convenient to your viewpoint EugeneW. Don't leave yourself open to the 'fake news' accusation.

Claiming you are 99.9% sure they dont exist is dogmatic. With a little eyewink to the possibility they do exist. Which makes him a theist. A dogmatic scientific theist! — EugeneW

Sorry but you leave me little choice. This is just nonsense!

I'm the one saying atheism's position isn't valid. It should not argue against theists or religion if it claims to simply represent 'non-belief' in a god/s. — Gregory A

Oh for f*** sake! I KNOW! and I think YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!

Logic is part of the common language we use, atheism relates logically to theism, nothing else. — Gregory A

I fully understand that you claim that atheism is a political viewpoint. It is not, is my response, so there is no need for you to repeat this viewpoint to me.

A non-believer can exist in the social sense, but not logically, as we either need to believe in Nature or believe in a god. — Gregory A

Nonsense! A non-believer exists in the human sense and humans are not Vulcan Spock type characters who only use YOUR depiction of logic to speak to theism. They can use any aspect of their humanity they like. MY logic tells me that YOUR logic is flawed!

I really doubt that, Dawkins would be more like myself in that respect. There are no 'gay people' in context, homosexuals don't exist in the physical sense, it is instead a condition that some people have. And yes we should do our best (and we do) to accommodate their rights, but, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree, the fundamental right of a child to have both a mother and a father should not be violated — Gregory A

I do not hold to this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual male but I don't see homosexuality as some kind of genetic ailment but I would prefer other homosexual people to debate you on the viewpoints you type above.

You're from 1964? — EugeneW

yes

Dawkins arrived at that value on intuition? How scientific — EugeneW

You believe in god(s) how unscientific!

It's Dawkins making meaningless claims. It means nothing to say you're 99.9% sure gods don't exist. I can say I'm 100% sure the do. That's higher than his meaningless value! — EugeneW

Yeah it is and confirms your theistic dogmatism!

Ive asked it twice! Without an answer, I might add. Chance from intuition is BS. — EugeneW

Well, let me answer it again for about the 4th time, I am confident god(s) do not exist. My confidence level is 99.9% Similar levels are stated by most atheists, Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennet/Dillahunty etc.
A lower percentage than your 100% confidence that gods do exist. The fact that insufficient evidence exists, either way, awards you the theistic dogmatist award. I will link you back to this answer if you ask the question again, as a time saver

I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make. — Gregory A

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, @EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine.

The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!! — EugeneW

You reminded me of an old Toyah song that I used to use as a wake-up call in the morning.
I think this was my wake-up call from about the age 22 to 26!

How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? — EugeneW

This is one of your long-playing repeats, I have already stated this answer to you more than once.
He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence. Which I personally think is a much more convincing intuition than your intuition that gods exist.

Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? — EugeneW

Yes, obviously he does not mention every god that has ever been invented by every tribe in history EugeneW, is that what he would have to do for you?

What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use? — EugeneW

What does your god calculations look like? what samples do you use?

I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted — EugeneW

I don't think he will care one jot, he plays in much more important playpens than TPF
Good, please pay attention to the suggestions I gave to Gregory A. Don't waste time with frivolous or meaningless claims, stick to actual valid quotes he has made that are pertinent to any point you are attempting to make and I will try to do the same.

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief — Gregory A

I don't know how you justify the 'jumps' you make from the words I type to the conclusions you arrive at in your head. I said 'He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists,' I did NOT restrict his statement to the Christian god of the bible, neither does he. He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah!
I would accept that he, like me, is DOGMATIC/passionately against many practices of the main religions.
I am incontrovertibly opposed to the evanhellicals, they are just evil through and through. Dawkins is aggressively/dogmatically against their practices as well. He has a similar stance against Sharia law from Islam or So-called Christians telling CHILDREN they will f****** burn in hell FOR ETERNITY if they don't believe. I and Richard Dawkins are unable to respond in a 'nice way' to such evil.
Dawkins will also say that historical religious practices such as pagan human sacrifice was totally F***** up thinking as well! I'm sure you are also personally against all the practices I have described above and in fact, share this common ground with Richard Dawkins. You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.'

Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow. — Gregory A

You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and writes rather than your projections.
Please actually quote from Dawkins when you critique him negatively and try your best to be balanced in your critique and not quote him out of context. I will respond in kind and that way our exchange might have some value. If you want to start a separate thread, specifically on Dawkins then I will gladly contribute as a defender of his position. There are a lot of YouTube materials from him which can be cited, including his audiobooks, free on YouTube.

:smile:

Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not. — EugeneW

Well the word has been used in biology, that's the only bit that's true.

I think we have gone around and around enough EugeneW.
My position has not moved one Planck length based on anything you have typed on this thread and I am sure the same is true for you.
I have nothing else to add that I have not already stated.
Thank you for the exchange.

Dogma is being used in science — EugeneW

I just dont agree. Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers.
Apart from complete morons like Ken Ham and his 'answers in genisis,' cronies, most religions now accept evolution from natural selection but claim it as god(s) work. Compare that to the days of the Scopes monkey trial and the treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Theism lost the moral high ground years and years ago and they will never get it back nor do they deserve to. Any dogmatic intent you try to highlight from science pales in comparison to theistic intrigues, past and present.

BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain? — EugeneW

In the same way you take the opposite view.

We dont talk science. We talk about science. In math one counter example disproves a claim. I disproved your claim that science aint about dogma — EugeneW

A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule.

One example is sufficient evidence. — EugeneW

In science, one example is never sufficient evidence.

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does — EugeneW

No he doesn't. He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists, he states a confidence level of 99.9%, as do I. 'God does not exist and that is an incontrovertible fact,' cannot be stated by atheists.
Therefore the atheist position is not dogmatic, in my opinion. But many individual members of all religions will claim that the existence of their particular god is an incontrovertible fact, so they are dogmatic. Do you claim with 100% confidence that your god(s) exist?

Central dogma of molecular biology
Not my words, Uni — EugeneW

Dogma is described as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I think most scientists are not happy with the idea that anything can be claimed as 'incontrovertibly true.'
So I assume that, as the material your link took me to has the description:

but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible

the authors considered use of the term 'Dogma' was apt in this case.

Is this the only use of the term Dogma being used to aid the understanding of a scientific paper, that you have encountered? This is hardly overwhelming evidence that all of science is intrinsically dogmatic.

It's in our nationalistic interest to believe that Americans don't have it so good. But the reality is that their poor still have it better than we think, poverty would be measured relative to regular living standards which are quite higher than anywhere else. — Gregory A

I will leave it up to any American readers of your above typings to agree or disagree with you as they are probably the best suited to the task.

The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 — Gregory A

Every civilisation ever created in human history experiences attacks from outside groups this is as you suggest a result of our survival of the fittest origins but belief in god fables has just been used as another convenient reason for attacking those with different beliefs. They are all bad reasons, differing religion/colour/culture/nationality/gender/sexual preference etc etc. WAR, what is it good for?
Humans need to focus on what can unite them not divide them. Theism is much more divisive compared to atheism. Religion offers thousands of incarnations, atheism offers one.

Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me. — EugeneW

Ok!

You do get inebriated with your own verbosity Joe!

Many political assassinations are not actually politically motivated. Instead done by people wanting a place in history. — Gregory A

Yeah, I know, I agree but this fact just points to the fact that many humans have mental problems.
We all know this.

That's part of the doctrine. But what about the dogma of molecular biology — EugeneW

I don't associate words like 'doctrine' and 'dogma' with science/biology, you do. For me, Science is a methodology used to pursue knowledge.

That's you projecting on me. Do you really think I care for some cosmologists not responding? I pity them arrogant bastard! Safely in their self erected towers of scientific ivory. I dont even try anymore to reach out (I asked a question on the podcast. No reply. Why not? Because I know things they dont and they are afraid of the unknown. Ooookhhh. Someone going against established order. They cant have someone knowing it better. But they cant prevent me thinking my thoughts. And I just know what the cosmos looks like on the fundamental level, unlike them, in their oh so important search for quantum gravity, or whatever silly approach. Like string theory. Nice theory but totally besides the truth. A fancy full fairytale. And they are content. So let them be happy. Let them wallow in their self-assigned importance and people watching in awe as if they are the possessors of some deep unknown truth knowable to the chosen ones, the lucky few only. There's your worshipping. It's the scientists that are worshipped... — EugeneW

All I can suggest is that you read the words you typed above back to yourself in as calm and subjective a manner as you can. Decide if you think your own words might read as bitter and angry when others read them.

An American thinks nothing of attention as they have everything they need — Gregory A

Yeah, I have heard all those black and Hispanic people living in the American ghettos are having a fab time and 'have everything they need.' Do you visit and walk through them at night without fear on a regular basis? The indigenous American tribal peoples are also very happy with their treatment since we Europeans stole their lands and named the whole place after an Italian mapmaker.
Where have you lived your life Gregory A in a Beverly hills bubble?
I don't know your back story but you do seem to have some naive viewpoints in my opinion.
I don't want to throw too many stones at you however as I am certainly not without sin myself.
Sin in my own non-religious definition, of course.

You boys are getting all icky together. — Joe Mello

Meethinks the old guy doth protest too much.....poor ol Joe....we can make space for you if you want to join us...you don't have to play hard to get....just join in Joe.......anytime......you're welcome. :naughty:

By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions. — Gregory A

Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed.

The reality is that had his plans worked he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in. — Gregory A

Jack Ruby saved everyone the bother so what does it matter?

Well, they worship the holy science books and the holy words in science festivals. The upper priest of science gather to spread the words and to proselytize. — EugeneW

I don't hear scientists call any science book 'holy,' they prove this by constantly challenging and reviewing their contents. If science acted as religion does then you would most likely be a scientific apostate and under some scientific law (like sharia law in Islam) you could be killed for your scientific torus heresy.

The worshipping isnt manifest. It hides in the minds of scientists and they secretly worship. It is not done to openly worship. That would be a sign of weakness. — EugeneW

This just comes from your own musings EugeneW. This is an example of the kind of typing from you that I DO think is based on your bitterness towards the current influential Cosmologists not responding to you with the consideration you feel you deserve. The DIMP guy and the Klien Bottle/Mobius guy felt the exact same way as you do minus your wink towards theism.

The point is we don't need science to attach a head to a stick to make a spear, these are natural progressions, not things handed to us by scientists. — Gregory A

I see no difference between the actions, discoveries and utility of science and the actions, discovery and utility of the spear. Natural progression is a term that fits better with terms like 'evolution' and 'natural selection,' not science, in my opinion.

It's the other way around in fact science owes its existence to the human need for discovery. . — Gregory A

Humans do science, science makes discoveries, humans like discoveries, you can play with the order any way you like. You add nor subtract anything of significance by doing so.

It's a cultural thing (regardless of where he was born) the/you Brits are more likely to stand up and want to be acclaimed compared to say the Americans with their modesty and respect (the legacy of a strong Christian past). — Gregory A

I do not consider myself a 'Brit,' I am Scottish. The need for acclamation is not cultural or national, it is individual. I watched a series on the humble Amish and even within their community there are those who are 'more acclaimed' within the Amish community itself, compared to others in the same community and some of those more acclaimed individuals seemed to covet their influential status.
The caricature of the arrogant fame/wealth/power-seeking American is well known if not indeed exaggerated and conflated as all caricatures of nationality, normally are.

science as they have no gods to worshi — EugeneW

You suggested science and nature are seen by scientists as equivalent to god(s)
I disagree, as scientists do not apply the Omnis to science or nature and they don't worship science or nature in any way that resembles theistic worship.

What exactly do you mean by worshipping? Singing praying and bend in awe? Then no. That's not to be seen in science as they have no gods to worship. They onky have nature to beat into submission. To make up for the lack — EugeneW

It was you who associated the word 'worship' with atheists and scientists, not me.

I'm sure he likes that mail. So he can proof his point. — EugeneW

Well, it's a legitimate way of dealing with his haters if you ask me. Well done Richard!

It would be the nature of the syndrome not who it would be named after that matters. And Oswald's first name was Lee, not Lee-Harvey — Gregory A

I don't really care about getting his name structure correct in your eyes. The 'syndrome' of which you type is a conflated invention from your own musings and in my opinion, it has no relevance or significance whatsoever to the life of Richard Dawkins.
Oswald himself when interviewed in his earlier years rejected the term communist and
preferred Marxist. Communism and socialism are badly abused terms in capitalist America, culminating in the heinous actions perpetrated by McCarthyism. Some Americans are trying to show the rest that the two terms do not represent anything near what they have been told.
Many 'philosophers' on this site often cite the 'communes of Epicurus,' as a model of a good way to begin and run a human civilisation.

And who wants to be infamous — Gregory A

Fame and infamy are assigned to or removed from an individual by 'the masses,' regardless of the wishes of the individual involved. There is no doubt that some people actively seek and covet such as fame. Some also love infamy. Many people are often attracted to being considered notorious for example and notoriety is a sibling of infamy in my opinion. Such words are far more nuanced than you suggest.

Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy — Gregory A

Which 'communist standard' are you referring to? The epicurean communist standard, the hippy communist standard? The communist standard of Castro or the communist standard of each person that lives in Cuba/Russia/China that you have personally met and talked politics with? Or are you just spouting political generalisations? Nixion was just another narcissist, we have a large supply of them, in every generation.

The worship of an alien super advanced and super "intelligent" species (the omniscient and omnipotent gods) who have created us in their super computer. — EugeneW

And again, in what ways have you witnessed this 'worship,' displayed?
Have you simply heard individuals talking about what you have typed above or do they sing and pray about it?

Cheers mate! You hang over from last night,? :smile: — EugeneW

I am quite lucky on the 'hangover' front. I don't seem to suffer much the next day, no matter how much I drink. Tongue like a carpet and a bit groggy but a strong coffee and I'm pretty much 'back.'
Hope you had a good night yourself! :smile:

In the labs they even beg nature!........... — EugeneW

Such 'exaggeration' and 'added emotion,' are just attempts to bolster your viewpoint but they are just meaningless and unimpressive to me.

Our friend Dawkins want to be famous — EugeneW

I will let Mr Dawkins answer for himself when it comes to whether or not he covets fame.
I personally don't think he does but I haven't asked him and I haven't watched an interview where he does discuss it directly. I did watch a session where he reads out all the hate mail he gets from theists and just general individuals who don't like him. It was quite entertaining.

There are no scientists here regardless of your or others qualifications. All people here are philosophers. — Gregory A

:rofl: Another pearl of knowledge from Gregory A which again, is way off the mark.

Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence. — Gregory A

and your point is.......

Dawkins suffers from Lee Oswald syndrome. — Gregory A

Yeah, I am sure Richard Dawkins read about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and thought to himself, "That's the life for me! If I copy his approach to life then I will become famous in America too!!" :lol:
'Keep em comin' Gregory A, you are very entertaining.
I think you will find that Oswald is infamous not famous and Dawkins is well known and respected, unlike Oswald. Your comparison between the two is utter nonsense.
Did Jim and Tammy Baker study Lee Harvey Oswald in their bid to become famous in America or is that suggestion, like yours, just BS.

Somehow, the atheistic worshipper - servant, if you like - only of that sublimely monstrous, self-devouring, deaf dumb & blind god, i.e, "Nature", is a carbon copy of the apocalyptic worshipper of the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent monster god appearing in the monotheist world religions — EugeneW

So what examples of 'worship' do you witness atheists participating in? Do they pray to nature, do they build places of worship to nature? Do groups of atheists gather together and sing worship songs to mother nature? Do we have a holy book of nature? Do atheists use any of the Omni's to refer to nature? I find your conflated comparison ridiculous.

The existence of gods fills life with a meaning that is non-explicable. — EugeneW

Not for any atheist I know of.

The gods are just there eternally. How they came to be is a complete mystery. — EugeneW

Taking a leaf out of your book EugeneW, It could just as easily be said:
The Universe is just there eternally. How it came to be is a complete mystery.
The boring old switcheroo!

Gods can even be useful for physics and cosmology. — EugeneW

Only as examples of lazy, quick-fix solutions that offer zero progress.

you try building a spaceship to the stars! — EugeneW

I think I will leave that to those better qualified than I, meanwhile, the theists/religious stalwarts are welcome to continue to stagnate on Earth. I predict that if theism still has advocates 100,000 years from now, they will not have progressed one planck length from where they are right now. They will still be wasting their time and energy on that which does not exist and the evidence they have to support their claim will be the same as it is now.

Hadnt seen this one yet! I go into it later! The dog looks at me again with waggling tale. I know what time it is! — EugeneW

ok maybe ramorra!
I away for a shower a feed and then the cheers of the beers!

Of course. Christianity doesn't kill people either. People kill people. You can't separate both though. Science and Christianity dont exist in a vacuum. — EugeneW

I think it's important to separate human actions and the labels used to describe it.
A killer Christian has to contend with his/her COMMANDMENT from god 'Thou shalt not kill.'
Science has no such commandments. Medicine has DO NO HARM and must also be contended with.

Not sure what you mean by "far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present". — EugeneW

Control of dangerous technology is normally the purview of politics or 'those with power,' so we must have adequate checks and balances to prevent nefarious individuals from gaining economic or political power or both and therefore stop them from gaining access to such technology or stop them from ever having the authority to use such technology without permission from independent arbiters who represent the Populus involved.

The spaceship argument is...well...ridiculous. or should I say ludicrous. — EugeneW

It wasn't an argument, how do you suggest we expand beyond Earth without developing the necessary technologies. Your suggestion that we just don't, is not going to be adhered to and it's a bad suggestion anyway as extinction is much more likely if we all exist on one planet only.

Torus Guy! Is that a Marvel character yet? Stan Lee would have been jealous! — EugeneW

Could be another story for your writing hand. You know enough about the physics involved so you could give Torus guy the powers he needs to control his Universe, just like the old human storytellers did for all the gods they invented! :wink:

Doesn't science have the same feature? — EugeneW

In my opinion, absolutely not. Some of the technologies which have come from scientific endeavors have caused many problems due to who controls them and what purposes they have been used for.
Technology gave us the light bulb and the internet and morphine etc and also the gun and the bullet etc but as I have said and you have not directly responded to, Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to insist that science can cause as many problems for humanity as religions can then I really have few problems with that insistence. Perhaps we can agree that both require far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present. I agree, but, technology will take this species beyond this planet which will give us much better protection against extinction, nothing in theism offers that unless you think god(s) will eventually give us good spaceships.