What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)

[Esquilax]

In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.

Am I putting faith in an auto mechanic when I take my car in to be repaired? Am I putting my faith in a surgeon when I have an operation?

I guess you could say so, but the crucial difference is that these are informed faith, backed up by the track record of the people involved, and the evidence of their efficacy. It's trust, certainly not the capital F Faith that religion requires, and the same is true of evolution and astrophysics, both of which come courtesy of scientists who always show their working and cite their sources when making claims. You're not the first theist to conflate reasonable trust based on evidence with faith in the completely unevidenced, but you're no more right than any of the others.

  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.

Because the people who assert the presence of bias in science are never able to show evidence of this, though they're readily able to show evidence of how little they understand science. Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong.

That's probably why.

Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?

Why are you assuming a lack of genuine searching from us? Do you know any of us? No? Then I guess this is just an assumption of convenience because it's easier to impugn our characters than it is to consider the possibility that we searched just as genuinely as you did and found nothing. If it can happen to us it could happen to you, right? Scary!

Take my wife, for example: lifelong christian until shortly before I met her. You can attempt to question her credentials but it would be foolish to: this is a woman who ended up in intensive care, on death's door, because she refused life saving medical treatment in favor of praying, her knowledge that the same god you believe in would save her preventing her from taking the proven treatment science was offering. Ultimately the god did nothing and let her waste away and almost die, but the scientific treatment had her bouncing back, and further scientific treatments since have allowed her to almost fully recover from her illness, at this point. She's an atheist now, but don't you dare accuse her of not genuinely searching, and the fact that she has falsifies your claim right there.

And her recovery, incidentally, is a perfect show of why it's acceptable to put your trust in science, and not in religion; one works, the other just promises that it does.

  It is certainly not because evolution and cosmetology, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand.

Easy to understand does not equal true. This is something you must come to terms with, if you wish to think rationally.

The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.

Why do you think it is acceptable to presume things about people you've never met in order to impugn their character? Why do you think this is a productive way to begin a conversation about beliefs, by dictating ours to us like this? Wouldn't you think it would be horribly rude and arrogant of us to do the same to you?

'Cause where I'm from, we call that a strawman argument, kid.

The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmetology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers. 

The difference, of course, is that scientists have a track record of demonstrable results- the world you live in is influenced by the works of science in so many ways it'd be impossible to list them all- and they present all of their data as a matter of routine. The difference, good sir, is that it's actually possible to learn the details of evolution and cosmology, whereas all religion has to offer, at every level, from the novice to the pope himself, is faith. There's nothing there to check, and the simple fact that religions accept that there's nothing to check does not make religion superior to science, where there actually is observations to look at.

Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.

Not knowing the answers isn't a reason to believe something, that's an argument from ignorance.

Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?

The former, if I have to choose between two options: we can at least demonstrate that finite humans exist. Not so for your god.

Of course, I object to your phrasing of that as "blind faith," too: when I look around, I see the myriad ways that science has improved my life, and I also see the willingness that those finite men have to show their data. My "faith" can hardly be called blind when it's based on so many observations, can it?

Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trust scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.

So don't rely on their say-so. Go and look at the data: it's literally right below the abstract on every single scientific report ever accepted by the mainstream community. You can even replicate that data yourself, if you so wish.

You can't do any of that for religion.

Sorry, if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  Bless.

I find the presumptuous nature of many of your ideas about us offensive, yes. But I don't think you meant it that way, I just think your religion has taught you not to consider those boundaries to be important in your proselytizing; from top to bottom the teachings of christianity purport to know what's in the minds of atheists too, but it's a practice you simply must drop, if you want to have an honest and productive conversation with us.

... That is what you want, isn't it?