I criticized you specificly and only because you equated atheism with religion, thus demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

They very often do not say "I don't know" when confronted with a question of cosmic origin; they very often DO say "you are an idiot" for posing the question.

Every scientist and athiest I know is very willing to say "I don't know" to these questions and not a one will say "You are an idiot" for posing it. Of course, after saying "I don't know" they tend to continue with "We have to do much more research".

There is not a single theory or discovery in the history of science that has not ultimately been surpassed or even dismissed as quaint by the passage of time

Not exactly. Newton's laws still hold true, E=MC2 still holds true. Sure, one adds to the other, but it doesn't really "surpass" it or render the former quaint.

First off everyone who has criticized my posts here has come away with the conclusion that I think "god did it". I've said directly that I do not believe in a god that created the universe. You all are assuming that since I question your stance I, by default, "accept the easy answer that "God did it."" That is simply not true, and if you read me carefully you will see that.

Second, I would argue that the atheists to which I refer do absolutely exist. I would imagine from your brief post that you probably don't fall into that camp, but plenty who post here at Salon do, and I would suggest that they can be found out by the personal slurs and emotional affront they take to having their beliefs challenged. Surely, nothing could be less scientific than to believe that one's theory is not worth investigating further. Yet, that is exactly what these atheists suggest; their viewpoint is beyond reproach, and everyone else is full of it. That, in a nutshell, is the approach of fundamentalism, and it runs directly against the scientific method we all (myself included) hold dear.

I'm not saying that "someone who calls himself an atheist is uninterested in those questions and yet claims to have the answer to everything". I'm saying that SOME who call themselves atheists are uninterested, and they tend to be the ones yelling the loudest.

There is not a single theory or discovery in the history of science that has not ultimately been surpassed or even dismissed as quaint by the passage of time. The materialists that I refer to do not speak as though they understand this. They speak as if they are Right, even Righteous. They very often do not say "I don't know" when confronted with a question of cosmic origin; they very often DO say "you are an idiot" for posing the question.

I give full due and respect to these people as being better able to navigate reality than a fundamentalist Christian. They certainly are. It is far better for everyone to have people blinded by science rather than blinded by religion. But, blind is blind.

My complaint is simply that via their pedantry they dismiss that which can't be known. But, as physics shows us, the un-known is every bit as much a part of the universe as is the known.

Maybe the best obit GC will receive. Thanks.

I have a particularly cherished memory of George Carlin, one because it was the first and only time I ever got to meet him, secondly because I got to share with him how his ideas about atheism had influenced me, and thirdly because I got to make him laugh, which to me was very special. Comedians hear it all, so if you can make one laugh with something original, it means you have the comedic spark.

I was in Las Vegas with my family, celebrating my youngest brother's 21st, and therefore his legality to gamble, birthday. We all went to go see George Carlin together at one of the casinos, I forget which. A couple hours before the show, I happened to see him walking through the casino, in his particular loping gait, and I said hello. We started talking, and I mentioned my religious upbringing, and my eventual lapse into atheism. He mentioned something that brought up the topic of classifying atheism as just another belief system, and I said, "Calling atheism a belief system or religion, is just like trying to call bald a hair color." He laughed out loud at that one, and said to me, "That's pretty good, where'd you come up with that?" I responded with, "I was inspired by a comedian I used to listen to when I was younger." I used to have all of his comedy albums when I was in my teens, I think my parents actually gave me my first one for Christmas. We only spoke for about ten more minutes before he had to go, but I still remember it to this day, and I think his thoughts on the matter are the correct ones.

"These atheists are not saying that they can't determine the source of the universe, they are saying the source of the universe is chemical/electrical processes. They refuse to ask the question, "Where did these processes come from?", "How did they begin?" They have no answer as to the origin of the processes. Period. Yet, they believe they have "the ultimate answer"."

These people, by and large, do not exist.

They're a fantasy of religious types.

The questions you ask above are asked all the time by physicists and philosophers who refuse to accept the easy answer that "God did it." Some of those physicists and philosophers think those questions are fundamentally unanswerable. Others think the answer is not meaningful. (The logic of the anthropic principle suggests that there is no "why" - nothing special about our universe. To suggest otherwise is to shoot an arrow blindly, then draw a target around where it hit and call yourself a marksman.)

The difference is that the we don't conflate the absence of an answer with certainty. That's the realm of faith, not science.

To suggest that someone who calls himself an atheist is uninterested in those questions and yet claims to have the answer to everything is akin to saying that someone who believes that Jesus was the son of god therefore believes that god created the world in six days. The primary difference is that there actually are thousands of people for whom the latter assumption would prove accurate. There aren't for the former.