A Few Misconceptions about Atheism and Science

It's a common misunderstanding that religious folk have where science is a religion in and of itself. It might be beneficial to look at a few definitions of the word "religion:"

--a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
--an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

Science isn't something that consists of a set of principles to believe in, or an institution centered around a deity or divine power. Science is merely a set of theories made that are based on observations and tested hypothesis. Science implores the use of tools which are also grounded in the observable universe, such as mathematics and physics.

I also always find it kind of humorous that religious people point at us and always shake their finger screaming "Well, you've been wrong before and you're going to be wrong again! How does THAT make you feel about science??" As if, well, science was the meaning of our existance or if it was some entity that would betray us eventually. Again, they do it because they think science is a religion to us. The truth is, scientists are wrong all of the time, and they are the first to know about it obviously. We deal with what it means to be wrong on a daily basis... we accept it, and move on. The people who actually need to step back and ask themselves "what if I'm wrong about everything" is the religious individual, who actually places all of his meaning in something unprovable and quite possibly non-existent. Yes, scientists are wrong about a great deal, but there is also evidence for the opposite as well. We can cure certain diseases, for example. We can calculate exactly where a projectile will wind up using the laws of physics. We can prove that the Earth rotates around the sun, rather than the sun around the Earth, and we can prove that gravity exists. We can do all of these things because our science is based on the observation of this universe, and nothing else. So, while scientists are wrong sometimes, they are right others and have the evidence to support that we in fact CAN make some logical assumptions about this universe. A religious individual bases his faith on NOTHING, with no empirical evidence, and then has the tenacity to point at a scientist and stupidly ask the question, "what if you're wrong." As we can see, it is not as big a dilemma to the scientist if he is wrong as it is to the religious individual, who bases his whole existance on something only grounded in a illogical feeling they give too much credit to.

We operate within the parameters of the known universe, because it is logical. To reach beyond that should not be a requirement of creation by a creator, especially if he refuses to show himself to his creation and tell us personally that he is there. The fact that this has not happened is evidence supporting his a.) non-existance, or b.) nonchalance to our existance.

Another misconception religious people have pertaining to faith is that

"it takes just as much faith NOT to believe in a god as it does TO believe in a god."

Lets talk about the definition of atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but rather a disbelief that there is a god. You think this is just arguing semantics, but it's not... there is no faith required to not believe something. For instance, do you believe in the Yeti? Chances are you don't. It doesn't take faith in his non-existance for you to not believe in the yeti, but rather... not enough evidence for you to BELIEVE in the yeti. You'd probably sooner believe it was a theory started by a bunch of hillbillies telling campfire stories rather than an actual observation.

I don't have faith that god doesn't exist... I simply don't believe he does. I could be wrong and I could be right... that answer is irrelevant to me. You think it's inconceivable for a person to be comfortable with not caring whether there is a god or not... but the simple answer is I have seen no evidence to show me why it should be relevant to my day-to-day life. I also don't have faith in whether the big bang ever happened or not. That discovery is irrelevant to my daily life as well... our origins, etc. I don't imagine I'll ever "know" the answer to any of that, and I've accepted that as truth. So, yes... our faiths are different. You have blind faith, and we don't.