the militant Atheists are more likely Anti-theists

God may not exist doesn't.

If there is no proof of something, and I am not affected by it then it is equivalent to it not existing

there's no proof god exists so it's best to assume he doesn't

In the same sense that I do not entertain the notion of Thor or the Tooth Fairy

but if someone finds personal value in religion power to them, I don't it but whatever floats their boat

@Lord Zedd that depends on how you answer the decartes bargain.

although Descartes would disagree with that suggestion 😉

we all have to found our own way in life, mine isn't religious I think I'm missing the religious belief part of the brain, probably why I'm not a Socialist or Progressive

probably 😃

but generally people try to fill that religious hole in their heart. It happens eventually, usually after people experience some great event close to birth or death.

I don't think it's a religious hole, really

it's a need for meaning I guess

or purpose

I think people just want meaning, and some people are satisfied with someone else's answer

religion isn't always 'someone elses answer' but i agree that its a 'meaning hole'

I accepted that any purpose or meaning obtained in life is self given, it can be whatever you want it to be

but all methods of 'search for meaning' become religions. Including science.

It is always to an extent. You're accepting a grand, supernatural power on faith

Science as a search for meaning is pointless

well grand ideological might be a bit more apt

I agree, which is why I'm religious 😄

Science is a tool for explaining phenomena

it's a means not an end

science isn't a science it's an art 😄

The search for meaning doesn't have a method. It's not really method based at all

The notion of a blueprint or external source for it is wrongheaded

my problem is when people argue that science is truth.

it has some method or it wouldn't work

science is an opinion on the truth with good evidence, but like any opinion it can be wrong.

Science is a method by which one obtains truth, or the closest thing to it

and any opinion based system is vulnerable to huxters and liars.

best approximation of truth

Opinion is misleading

A reliable scientific conclusion is reproducible, either via calculation or experimentation

Even a repeated experiment is often highly conjecture based.

and relies on assumptions that may or may not be true.

Socialism fails the scientific standard everytime

for example you can repeat a lot of 'experiments' that work, but they work for reasons that DO NOT have to do with what you're proving.

which makes it no more than dogma

Yeah, the approach of observation isn't some clean-slate methodology. You always go into everything having to make assumptions