If I'm not mistaken, atomism is the idea that all matter can be broken down into indivisible parts called atoms, and that it is the structure and arrangements of these atoms that give different forms of matter their properties. To quote Wikipedia:

As far as I know, the universe started from a singularity some 14.6 billion years ago. I've read several ideas on where it might have come from but nothing conclusive (which is understandable since it's a skeptical area for science). I have no idea what rules or laws applied before the universe was created, since the only such rules I am familiar with are those within the universe. As for a first cause to the universe, I find it nonsensical since one cannot talk about cause and effect without time, which science tells us only started after the creation of the universe. I think it might help to consider time from a four-dimensional perspective, like the way two-dimensional beings would look at a three-dimensional object - to them, a three-dimensional object doesn't have a single form but has various forms depending on the depth. Similarly, a four-dimensional being might see time as just another dimension, with the various stages of the universe representing the "time depth" (in this sense, the universe might have always existed, in one form or another).

Turning to speculation, the universe could have popped into existence due to quantum forces and an instability in matter and anti-matter. A singularity might be small enough to be subject to quantum forces and we know today that matter can temporarily pop into existence on a quantum level. The multiverse theory is also interesting, and increasingly likely. Our universe may be just one of an uncountable number of parallel universes. This might also tie in with Professor Smolin's concept of universe evolution, where new universes are created from black holes. Like a singularity, a black hole is also a point of infinite density so they may be nature's way of generating new universes. The list goes on but I think I'll stop it there for now.

I guess that's about it. I'm sorry I can't give you anything more concrete but it's a speculative area, and my view are heavily influenced by science.

This wiki is horrible and very incorrect. Atomism began with Democritus (at least from what we know of what few surviving texts we have) who supposed that one could take a piece of bread and break it in half and the do this again and again until eventually one would arive at a piece that could not be broken in two. This piece he calls an atom. Now atoms can be broken into constituent parts. But when one does so they either become other atoms or they cease to be truly be phisical material any longer (like if one were to try to split a hydrogen atom). And then we end up in the very strange world of quantum mechanics.

Now you see how little we really know? Let's not jump to any conclusions scientifically. Let's jump to conclusions in a realm of study where it is safe to do so. Howabout philosophy?

I'm not aware of that (you can feel free to edit it if you think it's inaccurate), but that doesn't really seem compatible with the standard model. Splitting a hydrogen atom into constituent parts should be possible (for example, the electron and proton can be separated, such as in plasma, and those parts can be split further still), and nowhere in physical theory does it indicate that splitting matter can make it non-physical (you can eliminate matter and turn it into energy though, such as when matter and anti-matter collide, but of course energy is not non-material either).

Like I said when I first quoted Weinberg, we will never know the entire truth - but that's okay.

It is quite clear that our current system of mathematic fits with quantum mechanics about as well as a square peg fits into a round hole.

This is a contradiction in terms Demi. How can you know that we will never know everything?

I am not interested in giving my ideas away for free.

The reason life exists is because the scientist conducting the experiment wanted to see what would happen if he placed his own 'genetic' material where the particles collided adding the necessary components for life. So, all of life is because of socially maladjusted and rather lonely nerd scientist.

what if the universe as we know it is just the molecular structure of something bigger, and the end of time is when the mucus dripping out of some giants nostril hits the ground, and our gravity is changed.

the universe could have popped into existence due to quantum forces and an instability in matter and anti-matter. A singularity might be small enough to be subject to quantum forces and we know today that matter can temporarily pop into existence on a quantum level. The multiverse theory is also interesting, and increasingly likely. Our universe may be just one of an uncountable number of parallel universes. This might also tie in with Professor Smolin's concept of universe evolution, where new universes are created from black holes. Like a singularity, a black hole is also a point of infinite density so they may be nature's way of generating new universes. The list goes on but I think I'll stop it there for now.

quantum mechanics is supper cool!

The view of someone who doesn't subscribe to the supernatural is not quite just about everything being of a "material" world the way that is implied.

herein we have another example of what I complain about concerning linquistics. If we don't handle our language use properly, we'll just keep arguing all century long again...year 2100, we'll still be stupid, collectively.

the only thing we can know for sure is that we exist when we are thinking

It's a good thing the great philosophers & scientists throughout history were more generous to their fellow man and gave their ideas away freely.

Yet another plausible theory!…You guys are batting 1000 (creatively speaking)…I hope I can get all this down in my notes.

I am not sure you realize that
what you heard
is not what I meant.

Actually, you are. Your whole point about Christianity moving the world was based on false premise. Christianity took over and the (western) world moved backwards. Once Christianity was pushed aside, we finally moved forward again. Now I can concede that the world did move farther forward than it was 2000 years ago, but that's not evidence that the dark ages were good or necessary. We may very well be 1000 years ahead right now had Christianity never gotten involved.
It's your premise that it was a good thing, so if you really believe that then by all means, be the man you claim to be and practice what you preach.
Note here that I'd rather see you realize how much of a negative impact Christianity has had on the Western world rather than drinking up... but there's nothing worse then someone who'll suggest overs should toil through something he himself will not.

even though your definition is an incorrect one. ;)

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I'm neither virtuous nor religious, nor do I act in contradiction of my stated beliefs. However, you have offered up the idea of the dark ages being a positive but when I offered you to partake in a regular act from the dark ages, you've refused. That's hypocritical, definition #2.

there were still more advances in technology that came out of the dark ages, and that was my fact. my statements weren't hypocritical they were factual, and my view that Christianity was positive was my take.

So they why did they call them the dark ages?

I heard it had something to do with the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but maybe I am wrong and you can enlighten me.

Google is a hell of a drug ;P

I will take it over the smack they are pushing with the bible any day.

first, says who i believe the bible?..

and second, your not even coming close to making an intelligent enough statement for me to argue with,..

...so this will be my last response to anything you post, unless it requires me to use my noodle ;)

moose ears, wiggly fingers ... lol