Sure... if you're trying to win a political election!!!
But in the world of academics are not learned via "niceties". You spend a large part of your life in a university and study HARD, and work HARD. There are people who never learned unless they're boinked on the head, some are incapable of learning because they did not have a proper childhood cognitive development phase through parental incompetence, those are hopeless.
If the universe is not eternal it may have started like this blog in an uncaused cause.
Mammals have trended smaller.
Steph should have reproduced to pass on her extra serving of nice genes.
All I see is the Latin alphabet, but I see no English being written... Is this a divine intervention, or an alien conspiracy, to remove the concepts of 'grammar' and 'context' from existence?
God is created in the image of man, therefore all the praise and shit bestowed by god onto humanity is actually bestowed by humans. Consequently, atheists have invented nothing in this regard. Notwithstanding, Humanists do religiously applaud humanity... but that's the Christian roots showing through.
Thank you Damien for those definitions.
I've been reading over the responses here and thinking.
I appreciate everyone's input.
@Johnathan, yes, in the same exact context that until there is evidence of the supernatural and gods, there are none. Evidence is king, queen and ace.
So you reject that animals have a purpose because there is no evidence of such a purpose, yet you assume that humans, as an exception, have a purpose despite also the lack of such evidence? (Or are you saying that neither have purpose?)
I do not believe in the concept of Purpose (capital P) at all, not for humans either, unless it's the illusion of purpose perpetrated by the powerful, imposed to achieve an end. You are mistaking me with someone else. Those persons who act upon indoctrinated Purpose by religious valued parents/mentors are harmful to the world. I perceive that the illusion of purpose is the nemesis of a reasonable humanity. That we humans have invented chairs with the purpose of sitting, yes indeed, no argument there. I make no exceptions for humans, on principal.
Alright then, I had mistaken your position. I will say though that using scientific facts to make an ontological position is a philosophical minefield. If something is not true because there is a lack of evidence, then does reality change when someone discovers the evidence?
The changing of reality is the very essence of scientific investigation. Additionally, these changes are rarely 180s, they're usually tweaks to previous understandings of reality. A recent example of interest... Radio-carbon dating of certain of the oldest primitive cave paintings in Spain were previously thought to be 30,ooo years old, making it unlikely that they were drawn by Neanderthals, since they'd pretty much gone extinct by this time. However, RCD is still a changing science, and the newest attempt to date these little red circles actually revealed that they're 40,ooo years old, opening the door for them to be Neanderthal markings. For many years, it was thought that Neanderthals were not sufficiently evolved for this. That was the proper assumption, given the lack of evidence. This new evidence is by no means final, but it opens the door to a change in our understanding of Neanderthals.
To make an ontological statement, yes, I perceive all reality through the sciences, biology, chemistry, and physics, that is my education... which derived from my personal propensity to science, which probably derived from my lifelong interest in these, which likely was facilitated by my never being religious or superstitious, over many many years, and my work.
However, I would never go so far as to using science to establish "right and wrong", as Hitchins and Harris did. There are aspects of our daily experience which can not be decided by science.