Not saying you're wrong, but it leaves the question of what the point of life is to the universe.

> what the point of life is to the universe

Life is the evolution of (increasingly) complex adaptive systems in non-equilibrium state, driven by external energy and enabling a new regime of faster entropy increase, thus faster descent towards the "heat death". This is contrary to the popular belief that life somehow goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the universal drive towards higher-entropy states (we are essentially specs of dust in a slow-motion explosion, since the Big Bang), that enables life-like systems to evolve under the right conditions to accelerate the slide towards a higher-entropy state.

Specifically in case of carbon-based biological life, one succinct tongue-in-cheek way to put it is "life's purpose is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide". See the "Nick Lane" discussion thread from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32392937

Unless one believes in supernatural creators, observers and judges, there is no point in anything and existence, life and consciousness are all unlucky coincidences. We are an absolutely pointless long term consequence of the natural process of evolution, that can start anytime the environment for life is just right.

> Unless one believes in supernatural creators, observers and judges, there is no point in anything and existence

This is your opinion. There are other possibilities.

> There are other possibilities.

They are unprovable but irrefutable delusions or part of frameworks people made up to come to peace with the truth.

Examples frameworks would be pitiful reasons to exist like "keep the species alive", "keep the family line going", "I need to be behave this and that way because my deity will judge me when I die" etc.

If this is true, why do atheists get so bent out of shape when you don't comply with their scriptures?

By all means, don't follow "our scriptures", whatever those may be, but accept that we consider anything anyone would call "faith" and belief in the super natural somewhere on the scale between magical thinking and mental illness.

If people were so forgiving when it's time to walk the talk.

Regardless, this (particularly, the conceptualization of the supernatural) is somewhat of a variation of the kind of thinking that I'm referring to. I don't disagree that this isn't formally documented in scripture, but nonetheless it seems to have somehow ended up broadly installed in minds (both theist and atheist, to be fair), not unlike how various behaviors can be observed in theists despite it not being a part of formal scripture.

Atheists don't have scriptures. Religious people love thinking about atheism as just another religion and will bring up all kinds of examples like Stalin and Mao commited attrocities in the name of religion.

In reality atheists don't have anything in common with one another. There is no shared belief system or a set of scriptures for atheists. Stalin and Mao did however have a shared belief system and it wasn't atheism.

> In reality atheists don't have anything in common with one another.

This seems unlikely.

> There is no shared belief system or a set of scriptures for atheists.

Large quantities of those I talk to on the internet seem to disagree.

As a signal processing machine what the brain understand as the universe may not in some reality have a point

Precisely at this juncture, one answer from Alan Watts was: Some apparent problems are created by language.

Why would/should/could there be a point? Life just is, doing life.

This is a tautology.

Wasn’t it intended? Self-reference as a way to say “this has a loop shape”.

perhaps it was, I don't accept it is my point

Life is recursion

Understanding itself.

I don't disagree with this, but it might only be a partial answer.