Science cannot answer that question, you are right. But to fill in that gap with God make no sense at all. The honest answer is no answer at all.
And besides, most if not all religious people don't stop there. They pray to God as if he cares about their lives, and they believe that our lives are judged and that we will either be rewarded or punished for how we act or believe. God's morality is also absolute, objective morality, and anyone who does not follow that interpretation is a sinner. You're saying the Universe is more interesting with God, but I disagree. If God stands for, "I don't know how the Universe began," then yeah, maybe. But to fill in that gap, and then to judge others based on a fairy tale is ridiculous. The atheists are not any closer to answering the question of the beginning, you're right. But the importance is theists believe they know the answer, and that it is correct. Either that, or they believe in God for no rational reason. If all it was was that irrational belief in God, that would be fine. But that's not all it is.
Those are, as I pointed out, questions of
why we are here, not of
how we are here. I guess I give theists more credit than atheists for at least attempting to answer such questions. The alternative, that there is no meaning, is boring.
I'm also having trouble grasping why having a solid moral code is inherently bad. Religion, like everything else, is evolving with the times. Many (if not most) liberals are still religious so I have trouble seeing where an entire ideology can be denounced based on a few bad examples. There's also nothing wrong with believing we will be rewarded or punished based on how we act. If it helps keep people in line how can it be a bad thing? Guess what? People are going to judge others based on how they think and act with or without the help of religion. I guess a good example would be many modern prominent atheists themselves.
I also think most religious people would disagree with you that their reasons for believing are entirely irrational. I think that for most people there's more to it than that a "fairy tale" said so.
I guess my biggest real problem with atheism in its modern, most vocal form is that its adherents tend to persecute certain groups of people based on their beliefs, which goes against values that I hold dear. It would be one thing if, say, Richard Dawkins was a radical extremist even within the atheist camp, but more and more that just doesn't seem to be the case.
4 in 10 Americans believe in strict Creationism
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx
Sobering. Of course, it's irrelevant. A lot more than four in ten Americans are religious. It's still a fact that many people who take religion for granted also do so with evolution.
Christopher Hitchens debates Religion and Science better than I ever could.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I enjoy Christopher Hitchens. He's not a blowhard. This was an interesting video and I thank you for posting it. If you can articulate how it negates my argument I'd be happy to attempt to respond.
"So in your own subjective opinion, a lack of God makes the world more interesting, because of your misunderstandings of modern science and religion. Objectively, the world is a much more interesting and complex place if God does exist."
I'm sorry but how can "the world is a much more interesting and complex place if God does exist" possibly be objective?
Because atheism renders the mysteries concerning our existence irrelevant, without adding anything new to the equation. That it is less interesting can be derived mathematically.
I would also say that your comment: "Theology is more concerned with "why", a question atheists simply dismiss." relies on the assumption that no atheist has ever asked "why am I here" or any other 'why'-prefixed question? With all due respect sir, that is nonsense.
The question of why we are here implies the existence of a creator. If there is no creator there is no why, so atheists who engage in such exercises do so without understanding their own position.
What would be more fair (and possibly even more accurate, in general terms) is that if an atheist asks 'why' something happens, or 'why' it has happened and a process or outcome can be shown as a natural progression without the need for a 'helping hand' from 'upon high', there is simply no need to ask 'why' as the 'how' is more than sufficient to explain the matter.
^^ proving the above point. This is the central issue; science addresses the "how"; it is unequipped to address the "why". Even if we knew everything about how we came into existence that it would be possible to know, it would do nothing to address why we are here. It's an interesting question, and atheism renders it meaningless.
If a process in this world could be used as an example where 'how' it happens still leaves a question of 'why', then it does leave an opening for god to exist. (I'm willing for people to provide examples). However as science gains more evidence for the theories and processes it understands, it leaves less and less room for god to be required at all.
"How" and "why" are two different questions; one's motive in a crime, for example, is a separate issue from one's method. Explaining how can never explain why. Science simply handwaves it, as it should.
"That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."
Are we talking about proof here, or evidence? Literally nothing has been proven. There
is evidence that we are here due to some kind of Creator. Of course, none of this has anything to do with which is more interesting between an atheistic perspective and a theistic perspective.
I'll respond when I get the chance, Roundy (on my iPod right now, not home), but it sounds to me like you're making a whole lot of assumptions about what I think. I was talking about my conversion from literal-Bible Christian when I was a kid to atheist as I grew up. There's a reason I specified that deism or any other forms of religion aren't the ones I addressed because they're irrelevant to what I was saying. I'm aware that there are a million and a half different forms and levels of spirituality and religion and lack thereof between where I started and where I am now but those aren't what I was talking about. I made sure to point out that deism and blah blah etc. can be just as fascinating but that it wasn't any part of what I was saying.
To be fair, you made the exemption for deism, not for other religions. But I can see how going from believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old to completely denouncing religion might have made life more interesting for you. That doesn't mean that your previous beliefs were any less interesting, just that obviously such a paradigm-shift is going to have that kind of impact.
And yes, it's subjective, obviously. Why do you think I said it made things more fascinating for me? I think you're being a little silly saying its objectively more fascinating if there's a God, I don't really know why you think you can assign an objective worth to what is simply opinion. I don't remember ever trying to tell you that your beliefs are objectively duller than mine.
Your beliefs are objectively duller than mine (there,
I said it). I'm really not trying to be rude or mean or anything, I'm just stating a fact. As an atheist you ignore a lot of what makes life and the question of our existence interesting. Obviously that's not a conscious choice on your part; it's just the way things are.