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

[Red Economist]

“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….”

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.  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, 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.  
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.


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.

It is true that to some extent that we are trusting scientists as authorities in their fields to tell us what they have studied and discovered. Ultimately, Knowledge is a shared body of thought rather than one based on individual belief. But this shared knowledge is considered knowledge because it is objectively true and can be demonstrated by the scientific method. It can therefore inform our actions in predicting and aticipating their results based on our understanding of the laws of nature. So here we can see that, if we accept that science is a "faith", it is clearly not blind. In order to have this conservation people had to make scientific discoveries that made it technologically possible to produce a laptop and an internet connection; the evidence of sciences ability to make discoveries and then apply them to everyday uses is all around us.
I think it is important to recognise that scientists are not omniscient, and there authority is relative to what they can proof and achieve. Whilst Scientific knowledge may be flawed perhaps are being self-contradictory nor in providing full explanations of the world, that is not the same as saying it is 'wrong', it is simply incomplete.. Scientific knowledge therefore evolves and changes over time as one theory is replaced by a better one, which is better at explaining the way the world works which can be demonstrated via results.

However, not all our ideas can be easily tested in the laboratory and science does therefore rest on knowledge claims that knowledge of the objective world is possible. Consequently, it often has a close association with materialism in seeking naturalistic explanations for the cause of phenomena which can be studied, observed and repeated through experimentation. Scientific Knowledge and the Philosophy of Science are not 'self-evident'; they are not revealed to us by scripture, but are a long process of repeated conflicts over what we currently know with new evidence that doesn't necessarily fit into our 'paradigm', thereby necessitating a new way of thinking to incorporate this evidence. Science is the work of hundreds of years of study and therefore looks at knowledge cliams in a way that is very different from religion/theism. Atheism as a single proposition that 'god does not exist' does not entail a world view, but is often related to a different understanding of how the world works than the  one offered by religion because it concerns the whether the source/cause of phenomena is a natural explanation or a supernatural one.