Is science the only way to knowledge?

[Creed of Heresy]

I was! Most atheists who can put two brain cells pleasure themselves on the science vs religion dichotomy and come to treat science itself as an object of religious affection. The result being, quite naturally, the delusion that science answers all questions.

Yeah, OK, that's either a faulty generalization fallacy, a hasty generalization fallacy, or, given every aspect of your presence here is essentially the equivalent of a five year-old sticking his tongue out at the adults in a desperate, annoying bid for attention (not to mention your entire profile's childishly mocking theme); biased sample fallacy. So we can dismiss this claim quite easily given its faulty premise from the very beginning and maybe.

But because I love kicking you in the intellectual nuts: In fact one of the most respected aspects of science itself is the humble fact that it is a method used in a never-ending quest to learn all that we can about the universe and does not claim to know everything; this is the very reason for the scientific method; to learn about the universe. If we knew everything about the universe, we wouldn't need the scientific method. Nice strawman fallacy; you attack the generalization that atheists typically rely on science to consider something factual or not by instead replacing it with the claim that "most atheists" are deluded into thinking that science currently and presently answers all questions, based on a generalization/bias fallacy.

So, we have generalization and straw-man. It's looking like another dandy day on Atheist Forums.

But to have this position you must (1) be familiar with science and how it works, and (2) be smart enough to distinguish between how religion sees knowledge vs how science sees knowledge.

And how individuals see knowledge. And how groups, organizations, individuals, etc. etc. etc. define knowledge.

I define knowledge as something I consider to be factual through having tested my hypothesis, my idea, my curiosity through testing, observation, and repeating the testing several times to determine consistency.

That which is consistent, I will state that I know it. Otherwise, I "suspect" or "believe" or "assume" something, and place about as much weight on those notions as their flimsy reputations suggest. They are little more than opinions, untested hypotheses, and I do not claim knowledge of them; interestingly, should I ever bring them to bear in an actual discussion involving such notions, they will be blasted out of existence extremely quick.

Religious knowledge, however, according to rationalists, is based largely upon the claim that those who are a part of religion or belief do not do so because they are seeking comfort or reassurance, but because they genuinely believe they are correct, that what they hold is, indeed, knowledge. And that's great, really, if your definition of knowledge is essentially that you believe something because someone wrote a claim in a dusty old book that's been translated about a hundred times, and that your reason for believing it is knowledge is essentially an ad populum fallacy wherein it's "shared knowledge" or just simply solipsistic horse-shit, hey, good on ya, you have fun with that, but don't expect me to ever accuse you of being grounded in reality.

Scientific knowledge is considered that which can be hypothesized, tested, observed, subjected to peer review and tested with reliable results. Scientific knowledge, by the way, is the only reason why we are as advanced as we are today, why we are so long-lived today, why we can do so much today.

Religious "knowledge" has contributed not a fucking thing other than war and personal suffering. After all, if the rationalists are right [as you seem to imply] and religion is NOT about the social and psychological benefits but is instead because they actually DO think the world works that way, then they cannot claim to be of any of those benefits; it's simply all about their chosen deity. But then...

Huh. Seems that they really DON'T believe think the bullshit is just the natural truth of the world, it really IS for the comforts and benefits.

What a fucking shock, it's almost like religion was a primitive coping mechanism that is actually non-essential, and is not reliably demonstrable, and therefore something I can dismiss without any concern.

Another problem is, they all have conflicting knowledge with one another...whereas science is pretty consistent in its demonstrations of knowledge. You'll have to understand why I put more trust in the scientific method to be the one that I can actually consider "knowledge" as opposed to the solipsistic inanity of religious "knowledge." You want to claim your knowledge is equal to mine?

Prove it.

Ironically many people here don't even have enough of an interest in science to agree with the false dichotomy of science vs religion.

Ignorance can be progress, it seems!

False dichotomy indeed. How dare we try to get people to get their heads out of their own asses to show them the world around us so that they might actually apply their senses to something meaningful. Nevermind that these people with their heads in the clouds and full of things they believe to be true for no other reason than that they believe it to be true also have their fingers over Big Red Buttons, or over triggers or detonator packs and they might not like the fact I don't just mindlessly believe they are right simply because they think they are right.

I demand proof of things. You don't ask for proof, you don't test things, you become gullible, and gullible people are idiots, they are saps, they are suckers, and they are easy to exploit, as has been shown endlessly throughout history; starry-eyed morons mindlessly following their own "subjective" truths [which ironically they learned from other people...so much for the weight and gravitas of personal experience with the supernatural, huh?] by following OTHER morons with their own subjective truths who desire to make their subjective truths objective truth, and because none of their ideas are universally compatible and therefore will never spread to every last individual on the earth and therefore do a really damn good job of proving this bullshit about religious "knowledge" is an absolute farce, they switch from the staff to the sword and spread their views by force.

This discussion, while it is interesting to see what everyone's subjective opinions are, has no clear definition. What you think is knowledge I think is delusion. But your own mindset betrays your ignorance; there is no "I don't know" on here. You see everything in black and white. As you demonstrated, you seem to be under the delusion that "most atheists" are deluded into believing that science provides the answers for everything.

I dunno who the fuck you know as far as these "science answers everything" types go, but I am quite well aware that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to any given question if you don't fucking know the answer. Better to admit a deficiency in knowledge and therefore display modesty and an interest in learning than to invent some mindless bullshit based on whatever you can pull out of your ass.