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

[Manny from Canada]

“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.

[Bad Wolf]

Yea, if there is one thing you can count on, it's that scientists always want to prove each other wrong. That's why peer reivew is so useful.

[Alex K]

Preach it, Manny

[Mudhammam]

Yea, if there is one thing you can count on, it's that scientists always want to prove each other wrong. That's why peer reivew is so useful.

To add a little perspective to the justifiably rosy reputation of science, scientists, unfortunately, are still human, and self-interests can be very selective.

[vorlon13]

4 pages and no one has mentioned baby eating yet.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I thought that atheists preferred aborted fetuses. More tender, kinda like veal.

[Bad Wolf]

They have to be at least 20 weeks, otherwise there's not enough worth eating

[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!

[gomlbrobro]

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.

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. 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.)

[Darkstar]

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.

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.  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.)

What does that even mean, "Science Creation"? Are you just trying to bash explanations other than goddidit?

How can you claim that scientists "don't entertain the concept of a god" as though this demonstrates that they are biased? Did Isaac Newton entertain the concept of special relativity? No. Why not? Was it because he was biased against the idea, or because the evidence available to him at the time didn't indicate any such thing? We now know about special relativity, but we still haven't found any scientific evidence for a god. If any gods exist, we should expect to find them eventually, even if we aren't specifically looking for them (Yahweh is omnipresent for crying out loud). But if no gods exist, no level of rhetoric will be able to salvage them in the end.

Do you think that Newton had faith in a pre-conceived and deeply held personal belief that the force of gravity causes an acceleration at 9.81 meters per second? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. He went where the evidence led him. The claim that scientists only seek to confirm their pre-conceived worldviews is beyond absurd. That is, in fact, the very antithesis of scientific thinking. Even if this were somehow true, you would then have to go a step further and claim that almost all scientists were in on the conspiracy together, since, for example, 97% of scientists accept climate change as real, and over 99% accept evolution.