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

[Jenny A]

1. Internet, computers, etc = evidence of science working.  Our knowledge and utilization of science on this earth has been successful.  Why do you assume that knowledge of the most complex phenomenon will ever be discovered.  Human kind, by your belief, will surely die off before that point.  Science is no where close to making sense of the origin of the cosmos.

I don't assume science will figure out the origins of life or the universe.  But, religion merely announces it has the answer, which is guaranteed not to find a real answer.  

2.  "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)."

Sorry for the bad writing... I didn't mean to convey that scientists were "biased" in my statement (although I have before).
I mean "biased" as in they already have their mind set of what they believe.  Their intentions are biased by trying to prove science creation, meaning they don't entertain the concept of a god in the first place. 

Actually, science is biased against any assertion not backed by evidence.  That's a good thing.  Why should anyone ever put their trust in something not backed by evidence?  Theist representations are not backed by anything whatsoever.

When I say, "the biased assertions of theism", I mean the founding fathers of the religion (eg. Jesus and followers, Muhammad, Hindu founders).  It was a comparison of the different bias, illustrating that there is also the same ignorance in the scientific community.  (Note: not ignorance of their pursuit to tangible knowledge, but ignorance in bias.)

Bias is deciding in advance of or despite the evidence.  Requiring evidence is the antithesis of bias.   That's what the scientific method does, it requires evidence before belief.

The choice between my saying that the origin of the universe was a giant chicken laying a cosmic egg and Genesis saying that it was god ordering chaos is precisely nothing. There is no evidence upon which to choose between those two assertions except bias.  If you look a proposal like the big bang, there is evidence supporting that.  You can rationally decide if it's sufficient evidence.  But there is no evidence for either god or my giant chicken--they, unlike the big bang, are of equal probability and there are an infinite number of such base assertions that might be made.  That is why such assertions are of no value.  Assertions made on the basis of evidence are weighable because they are based on evidence.

Now, once again I have a question and it's one I asked earlier:  why is it necessary to know the origin of life or the universe?  What's wrong with the honest answer:  we don't know?