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

[Esquilax]

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.

What are you even trying to say here? We haven't found the answer yet, therefore we never will? We might not find the answer if we search, so we shouldn't? The complexity of an issue, or whether we'll ever successfully capture it, has no bearing on the value of the search, nor is it germane to your initial point in this thread, which is that we put faith in science. Regardless of the nature of the questions science attempts to answer, we have ample evidence that science is not only an effective way to answer such questions, as listed in this thread, but that science may in fact be the only method by which we'll even come close to an answer. Science has literally transformed the world more ways than I can count; we simply do not need faith to know that it is effective as a means of discovering the truth.

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.  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.)

How do you know they're biased?

No, seriously: how did you determine that? Do you have some way of knowing what the entire scientific community is thinking, as individuals? Do you even know any scientists personally? And if not, how on earth can you claim they have this overriding bias? How can you seriously be standing here and telling us that you know the innermost thoughts of people you have never met, from all walks of life, all across the world, and that they just so happen to fit into a single enormous generalization that just so happens to be the thing that means you don't have to feel bad when they disagree with you?

How can you honestly make such a ridiculous claim?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's precisely because they disagree with you, and you're looking for, or have been primed to look for by other creationists, reasons to dismiss the possibility that they might have a point. It's easier to just tar the entire scientific community with bias, rather than to examine their findings and maybe, just maybe, see that they're right, isn't it? It sure makes it easier to stick with what you want to be true, when you can just recast anybody who dares say something different as people who are just out to get what you believe in, but that doesn't make it true.

It doesn't make it true, and as it happens, this kind of simplistic, self reinforcing delusion is easily falsified; why not look up Francis Collins, sometime? He was the head of the Human Genome Project, which sequenced the entirety of human DNA and enhanced our understanding of evolution greatly, and he's the current head of the National Institute of Health. By all accounts he's a good scientist with some excellent references under his belt, a member of the very scientific community you're talking about... and an evangelical christian. So much for the claim that scientists won't consider god, huh?

In truth, the scientific community is diverse, the people within it comprising many different belief systems. Your generalizing of them is not only incredibly simplistic, it's also not reflective of reality. It's also contradictory, as on the one hand you say the scientific community is biased against what you believe, but at the same time you believe (mistakenly, but you still believe it) that Michael Behe is a member of that scientific community, and he's a proponent of intelligent design.

So which is it? Is the community biased or not? Or is it only biased when it makes conclusions you don't agree with, and non-biased the rest of the time?