If atheism is true

If atheism is true
THEN:
life comes from non-life
rationality comes from non-rational processes
morality from a-moral processes
meaning from non-meaning
values of life from no-values
order from chaos
complexity from simplicity
consciousness from non-consciousness
Codes, complex instructional information, translation, encoding, transmission, and decoding, from random, unguided events
truth from non-existing truth
thoughts from no thoughts
intelligence from non-intelligence
beauty and ugliness, from nothing
personality from matter
love, justice, kindness, evil, from stardust
matter/energy space and time from nothing and no cause
And everything we have done, one day, nobody will remember, and we will be stardust again - who will care ?!!
Makes perfect sense !!

If atheism is true THEN: life comes from non-life rationality comes from non-rational processes morality from a-moral processes meaning from non-meaning values of life from no-values order from chaos complexity from simplicity consciousness from non-consciousness Codes, complex instructional information, translation, encoding, transmission, and decoding, from random, unguided events truth from non-existing truth thoughts from no thoughts intelligence from non-intelligence beauty and ugliness, from nothing personality from matter love, justice, kindness, evil, from stardust matter/energy space and time from nothing and no cause And everything we have done, one day, nobody will remember, and we will be stardust again - who will care ?!! Makes perfect sense !!
It shows how precious life is. The whole process might be pretty improbable, so we cannot count in on it to happen again and again. And we cannot count on a god to save us. We should care much more for the earth and everything living. Science has already a lot of answers on how above things are possible, of course also a lot of partial answers. But nowhere the workings of a god are found. Gaps in our explanations do not mean 'God did it'. Gaps in your understanding or imagination even less.

Depends how you define life I guess. There’s a theory of the beginnings of life that says it can start with certain minerals being exposed to sunlight for long enough. They begin to arrange themselves in a way that allows them to move and produce more of their own elements. So, if morality is finding a way to survive that does less harm to things around you, it begins at the earliest stages. You could say the same thing was happening even as the earliest elements formed into stars. Is it rational to want to continue what it is you are doing into the future? To pass on what you’ve learned to a next generation? I think the Bible says it is.
“Meaning" then is just a more sophisticated explanation of that, a secondary question of “why" are we attempting to continue, to improve. Values are what support that. “complexity from simplicity" seems obvious, how else would things progress? And consciousness is just a term to describe our complex brains. As are the rest of your list.
Until you get to “no cause", but that’s just our lack of understanding of the universe. We are matter, so we started by understanding that. Then we figured out matter is really energy and time is only a consequence of how that energy is currently acting in our environment. We know the universe is bigger than we can see. We may or may not figure out what is out there.

And everything we have done, one day, nobody will remember, and we will be stardust again - who will care ?!! Makes perfect sense !!
It makes perfect sense because that's how it is. What rhyme or reason is there in believing in some holding cell called Heaven/Hell where your dematerialized "spirit" can fester for all eternity??? Beyond that refer to GbD, who again does a wonderfully succinct job of covering the bases.
If atheism is true THEN: life comes from non-life And everything we have done, one day, nobody will remember, and we will be stardust again - who will care ?!! Makes perfect sense !!
It shows how precious life is. The whole process might be pretty improbable, so we cannot count in on it to happen again and again. And we cannot count on a god to save us. We should care much more for the earth and everything living. Science has already a lot of answers on how above things are possible, of course also a lot of partial answers. But nowhere the workings of a god are found. Gaps in our explanations do not mean 'God did it'. Gaps in your understanding or imagination even less.You nailed what so many religionists totally miss. Their viewpoint totally cheapens life and makes morality just a gimmick. If we screw up, no biggie, god'll just pop out another bunch of us and a little rock to live on and off we go.
It shows how precious life is. The whole process might be pretty improbable, so we cannot count in on it to happen again and again. And we cannot count on a god to save us. We should care much more for the earth and everything living. Science has already a lot of answers on how above things are possible, of course also a lot of partial answers. But nowhere the workings of a god are found. Gaps in our explanations do not mean 'God did it'. Gaps in your understanding or imagination even less.
If I didn't know Adnonai already, I might not know that "makes perfect sense" was sarcasm. If everything happened naturally, and there is nothing else outside of it that cares, then the conclusion is obvious. The only thing missing is the addition that it's exactly why we should care for each other while we are here.

For some reason… This popped into my head after the first post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUOGxePBs50

Atheism is all very well but it does not provide any framework for existence.
Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn’t a substitute paradigm with which to explain the ‘big picture.’
Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.

Atheism is all very well but it does not provide any framework for existence. Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
I think it is belief systems that purport to provide ultimate answers. Science would honestly say it doesn't know.
{ author-"webplodder" date- "1493905640"} Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
I would suggest that "science" is not a belief-system - if anything it is a philosophy and set of rules to facilitate as honest a learning process as humans are capable of. What folks like webplodder ignore is that a belief-system demands acceptance of an entire dogma. Science only expects you to follow certain well reasoned rules. Webplodder, your turn - please explain your assertion. Which "Big Picture" are you referring to? Seems to me science is doing pretty good. But than, I don't expect absolute answers from it either.
Atheism is all very well but it does not provide any framework for existence. Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
I think it is belief systems that purport to provide ultimate answers. Science would honestly say it doesn't know. Yes, so science is honest about being inadequate, is what you are really saying. Belief in some ultimate power is the only solution to pursuing an answer to everything. Anything else just fails.
{ author-"webplodder" date- "1493905640"} Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
I would suggest that "science" is not a belief-system - if anything it is a philosophy and set of rules to facilitate as honest a learning process as humans are capable of. What folks like webplodder ignore is that a belief-system demands acceptance of an entire dogma. Science only expects you to follow certain well reasoned rules. Webplodder, your turn - please explain your assertion. Which "Big Picture" are you referring to? Seems to me science is doing pretty good. But than, I don't expect absolute answers from it either.
Science is doing pretty good at giving us answers to soluble questions but there are many more insoluble ones to think about.
Science is doing pretty good at giving us answers to soluble questions but there are many more insoluble ones to think about.
Ah those pesky questions that just won't dissolve.
Yes, so science is honest about being inadequate, is what you are really saying. Belief in some ultimate power is the only solution to pursuing an answer to everything. Anything else just fails.
I'm not clear on this. Are you saying that believing an answer that someone tells you came from an ultimate power is the same as using data and evidence to arrive at an answer? Or are you saying that if you believe in an ultimate power, you will receive an answer from it? Or something else?
Atheism is all very well but it does not provide any framework for existence. Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
You've actually described religion, which does purport to provide ultimate answers to existence, but is providing conveniemt answers that have a hidden foundation. Science reveals,only what it can prove is true, which is why it's "answers" are always open to change. It's religion that pretends to have ultimate answers. Unfortunately, there are billions of people willing to embrace them without evidence and without question--as childen embrace a comforting fairy tale.
rationality comes from non-rational processes
And the irrationality of theists comes from where? There are so many different kinds of theists some of them must be irrational. :lol: psik
rationality comes from non-rational processes
And the irrationality of theists comes from where? There are so many different kinds of theists some of them must be irrational. :lol: psik Don't bet on it!
Atheism is all very well but it does not provide any framework for existence. Science is only able to explain things within limited parameters so science isn't a substitute paradigm with which to explain the 'big picture.' Actually, science itself is a belief-system because it does not purport to provide any ultimate answers to existence and may simply be providing convenient answers that are actually due to a more hidden foundation.
I think it is belief systems that purport to provide ultimate answers. Science would honestly say it doesn't know. Yes, so science is honest about being inadequate, is what you are really saying. Belief in some ultimate power is the only solution to pursuing an answer to everything. Anything else just fails. By that reasoning, believing in the FSM would be acceptable as representing the "Big Picture". What does the Big Picture look like that it gives ife meaning, other than just having emerged.
Belief in some ultimate power is the only solution to pursuing an answer to everything. Anything else just fails.
"Belief in some ultimate power is the only solution to pursuing an answer to everything." Seems unlikely, considering lack of evidence. I suppose the ultimate power explains the ultimate power, or is it not included in "everything"? "Anything else just fails." Thats just a simple argument from ignorance. Do you think of "everything" like infinity, and explaining it is just weird, like counting to infinity? Or by "everything" do you just mean the list from the original post? Something else?
If atheism is true Atheism IS true. You just don't know what it means for atheism to be true. As long as there is one person on earth who does not believe in any god, atheism is true, it exists. THEN: There is no THEN. Atheism claims nothing. It is a belief state. It can have no consequences. life comes from non-life rationality comes from non-rational processes morality from a-moral processes meaning from non-meaning values of life from no-values order from chaos complexity from simplicity consciousness from non-consciousness Codes, complex instructional information, translation, encoding, transmission, and decoding, from random, unguided events truth from non-existing truth thoughts from no thoughts intelligence from non-intelligence beauty and ugliness, from nothing personality from matter love, justice, kindness, evil, from stardust matter/energy space and time from nothing and no cause And everything we have done, one day, nobody will remember, and we will be stardust again - who will care ?!! Makes perfect sense !!
Only if you don't know what atheism is. Nothing that you've listed applies to atheism. Atheism makes no claims and it offers no commands or direction. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's all it is.