Jones statement of "Democritus' theory is far more congenial, both in general outlook and in detail, to most modern minds" as well as, "taken as a whole it was an immense achievement, vastly superior to anything that had preceded it as well to much that was to follow it." reflect how similar Atomism is to our current ways of thought. Despite their contradictions of the swerve, Epicurus and Lucretius developed their theories of the physical world openly so that any flaw could be exposed instead of hidden. In today's science their theories would have been picked apart by their peers and the inconsistencies, such as the random swerve, would have been reevaluated. But more importantly they envisioned nature as a system, or machine that worked through regular rules and motions that are intelligible to the human mind. As well as the idea that motion is the only type of change possible and that all forms of change eventually come down to the motion of the "stuff". The "stuff", which Thales had originally thought of as being one, is refined to being impenetrable and simply occupying space. The Atomist were
             almost able to answer Thales original question in material terms. Unfortunately for Atomism, it did not cater to, or flatter man in its ideas of the universe. "Man is no more than a collection of atoms suffering from some extremely odd illusions" or, "Life, in the Atomist view, has no significance; it is a brief candle flickering for a moment in an immense dark." These ideas probably seemed similar to Sophist view for the Greeks, in that, the world is made objective and value is in the eye of the beholder. Jones also makes a good point, as far as religion views the world, in that, religions give a "cosmic meaning" to the world and that meaning has relevance to man. The lack of this human relevance within Atomism, as well as any other physical view of the...