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

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism. 

1) Scientists practice peer-review to insure that claims being made are as accurate as possible.

2) Scientists do not adhere rigidly to dogma, insisting that knowledge cannot be changed or updated. Indeed, fame, fortune, and history awaits the scientist whose new discovery is sufficiently momentous.

Because of this, I do not have "faith" in the lessons science teaches us about reality. I know that these facts generally have been vetted, and are constantly being reviewed and updated.
Additionally, claiming that the claims of scientists are "biased" needs a lot of evidence, because you are aspersing a lot of scientists.

Finally, I always get a laugh out of folks denigrating science-as-faith on the Internet, using a computer ... both the products of science, both evidence that science works -- meaning that you don't need faith in science; all you have to do is turn on your computer to see that it is useful in understanding reality.

Here, you can test this for yourself.  For your next post, don't uses a computer; instead, pray to the deity of your choice to place your post in this thread.

Let's see how that faith stuff works for you.

---

The effort to legitimize the ridiculous by denigrating a system of thought with a proven track record and the ability to adjust with new discovery is buffoonery. 

... especially when the denigration is done using the tools developed by the system the critic is criticizing.

---

“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.

Here's why:
Those scientists can provide empirical and objective evidence for their conclusions.

Theists can not.
Scientists publish their findings to be challenged.
Theists do not.
Science corrects it's errors
Theism does not.
Science advances with new knowledge
Theism does not.
Science will work whether you believe in it or not.
Theism will not.

What a first post!