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

[Jenny A]

“Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”

I don't know that it's wise, but it's polite, moral, and acedemic to attribute quotations, to the person who said them. . .

That said, atheisim is not an investment in scientific assertions, it is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less.   It requires no investment of any kind. 

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.  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.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?  It is certainly not because abstract science, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand. 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.


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.

 
No.  I was an atheist before I knew anything about evolution or astrophysics and there were atheists long before either discipline was invented.  But there is a fundamental difference between scientific knowledge and religionious knowledge.  Religion really is a matter of faith.  In the case of science, the proof must be there, or it's not science.  Because science is based on other scientists being able to replicate results, false hypothesis, will fall.  Science is also doing something you don't even consider, admitting we might not know.  I don't know many, many things.  How life or the universe began are just two of them.  But knowledge of those things is not necessary to living well.  If it were necessary, I don't see that believing really hard would help.

Understanding faith and belief completely would end faith and belief.  Faith and belief are simply pretending you know really, really hard.

The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.

 
Believe what?  Atheism doesn't require belief.  It's simply an acknowledgment of a lack of belief in god.  Given the lack of evidence of god, that's a no brainier.  No faith required.  I know perfectly well  why I don't believe: no evidence.

I'm assuming you are Christian.  Why aren't you Muslim?  Why aren't you Hindu?  Why aren't you Mormon?  Why don't you believe in Zeus, or unicorns, or Nessy?  Lack of evidence, that's why.  Show me evidence of your god, and we'll talk.

Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmology, 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.  
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.  

Scientists may understand their area of expertise in the way you suggest, but not all science.  What we put our "faith" in as you call it, is results.  Your cell phone, internet connection, light switch, vaccine, printing press, printer, microwave, TV, CD player, etc. work, because of knowledge produced by science.  I don't need faith, I just need verification.  The light switch works, prayer not so much.

Also we put our faith in a process of adversarial proof.  Science must be verified by replication.

Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?  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.  Trusting scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.

Actually, you too trust science every time you get in a car, cross a bridge, take an elevator, climb to the second story, have an operation, take a prescribed drug, visit the doctor, use the net, use your computer, turn on the light switch, use your cell phone, turn on the AC, eat heavily breed meat (all domestic meat), drive a car, fly, worry about nuclear bombs, rely on nuclear power, and on and on and on.   But it isn't blind faith, it's experience. 

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.  God Bless.

No, I don't think you are sorry, you came to offend.  What you did is amuse me with a false dichotomy: god or science.  There are many theist scientists.   But, I know of no one who operates without the fruits of science.  The fruits of religion are prejudice, ignorance, and war---and to be fair fellowship.  But religion is not necessary for fellowship.   Science is necessary for your current state of well being.