Should atheists be expected to have a vast knowledge of science?

I have a vast knowledge of science, but I have no expectation that other atheists do as well. Some atheists are artists or accountants or athletes, etc, etc. No need to be a scientist to not believe in imaginary stuff.

Atheists are just people who don't believe in any gods. We don't have to know all the answers to reject "a magic invisible being did it."

For thousands of years, people have said that their gods were behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.

A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are supported by extensive data. There is no reliable data supporting the some-god-did-it hypothesis, and especially not the Yahweh-did-it hypothesis.

I love science, most of my qualifications are science and maths subjects, including a BSc, however, unfortunately because of the way that the world is going and the economy being the way it is, I haven't been able to pursue a career in science, which is a shame, as I feel as though I'm drifting away from it now.

It doesn't change my love for the subject though, I was always a chemist more than a physicist though, there's a lot of theoretical physics that I don't understand on a mathematical level, but I understand the concepts.

I still read about science all the time.

Learning sciences definitely contributed to me becoming an atheist, but I don't think it's essential to know much science at all to know that there is no god.

'Do you believe in god?'

'Which one?'

Sums it up perfectly for me, and that question doesn't need any science.

"So, to atheists, or anyone I suppose: Is knowing that there's no evidence for God enough to call myself an atheist, or must I study the big bang to do so?"

Try this on...

Is knowing that there's no evidence for The Pixie enough to call myself an aPixieist, or must I study the big bang to do so?

When you replace god and Jebus and all those doods with The Pixie it all sounds like it really is - ridiculous superstitious nonsense.

Life as it truly is, is much grander than anything religion has to offer.

How would things be different if there were no god?

‘Gods’ and magic are the most simplistic excuses ignorant primitives have ever imagined explaining anything.

We could just as well suggest The Rainbow Serpent, with or without the assistance of a mob of Pixies wearing gum-boots, did it cos there’s the same amount of evidence... NONE.

~

I tend to agree with you. I'm agnostic, you cannot prove that ANY "god" does or does not exist. Period. I did study math and physics in college, but that was a long time ago and I have no knowledge of quantum physics, a bit more knowledge of evolution. But then, the vast majority of REAL Christians also accept the Big Bang and evolution as useful explanations of the ways in which "god" operates in the Universe. It is only the "literal-bible" fundamentalists that do not accept evidence. You don't have to be an all-knowing scientist to be Christian, why do you need to be one to be agnostic/atheist?

Blessings on your Journey!

Basic will do..

What is a cause? It’s something that changes reality. The state of things after the cause is different from the state of things before the cause. To be a true cause a thing has to be close in time and space to the effect, otherwise it’s just co-incidence: the hammer has to hit the nail, the photon hit the atom.

Now take a look at intelligence. It’s one of the most important things in the universe. Intelligence can think, and plan, and so have intent and purpose. It’s taken a very long time for our intelligence to appear on this world, hundreds of millions of years of evolution, an uncountable sequence of causes and effects. We are latecomers on a world that has been filled with life for over three million millenia.

Intelligence is big, it’s full of thoughts and memories and skill of reasoning. Our brains have cosmic complexity: there are as many connections between cells in your head as stars in a thousand galaxies. If complexity was light, we would each be a supernova.

Intelligence takes power, as each thought is cause and effect racing through the synapses of a mind, and all such processing burns fuel to keep the neurons sparking in the vast neural networks that give sentience. The cause and effect only stops with death.

Let’s weave these strands together. Our energetic minds, full of potential intelligence, with thought (effect) following thought (cause) every instant, tries to think of origins. What do some of these minds come up with…

An intelligence that can’t involve cause and effect, because it is uncaused. An intelligence that had no origin, even though we know of the long evolution that produced ours. An intelligence that is vastly more complex that ours is, and yet which is supposed to be more reasonable as an explanation of origins than something unknown and yet infinitesimally small at the quantum level.

No, it doesn’t work, does it? Intelligence, with it’s thoughts and memories has to develop within time and space, and yet those have to be absent for the first cause, as if they were present, there would be no need for that cause.

Finally, an intelligence cannot be a first cause of anything, because intelligence itself involves cause and effect. There will always have to be a cause of the first thought, the first memory.

Speak about entities existing 'outside of time and space’. Well, how would you know anything about such entities? Have you ever seen something outside of time or space? You assert that for things 'to be created’ they must exist within time and space, but how could you possibly know that things outside of space and time can’t be created?

You’ve declared God to be an uncaused cause without any evidence whatsoever to back you up, except similar claims by other Christians. What’s to stop someone else from simply claiming the same thing about the universe itself – that it extends beyond known spacetime and is not really beholden to causality either? It’s a simpler solution because it cuts out middle men like God altogether.

Has anyone seen God making something? No, I thought not. Well, just as you feel compelled to introduce God as a manufacturer, to put s/he/it at the beginning of the chain, I feel compelled to ask, not only ''Where’s your evidence?’ but ''Where did 'God’ come from? Who made 'God’?’, too. It’s no more than another element in the regression.

Although I would differ with my fellow atheists on many things, the one thing we can agree on is that we want evidence for what we accept. There is not the slightest evidence for God, no matter how much you muddy the waters. You may want to believe in God, but hoping that something is true does not make it so

No. Ignorance of factual things works as good for the atheist as it does for the Christian or other faith practitioner. Just know that many of the top scientists, doctors and the like all believe the evidence they see to be a confirmation of their belief in God just as much as those who believe in chaos theory or the randomness of the universe to be evidence against him.

The bottom line is that while God tells us that all things bear witness of him they also are not the means by which he can be found, thus he sets the terms. To me, it's easier and more beneficial to believe and requires less faith than it does to disbelieve because the odds and promises are greater. He allows all to seek their comfort zone and choose where they will be after this life. It's fairly well outlined in the scriptures if one cares for themselves enough to seek out the greater truths.

The start of the universe and evolution bother creationists so much. Those arethe two main questions. It dismisses their special himan place in reality. They cant believe you dont believe the bible and remember their beliefs are based in a bible they believe to be the word of god.

Its good to brush up on hour science anyways for your own knowledge. They will not combat you with science to prove. They will argue against yours and therefore the default is god. Haha. They win.

Science does not even try to disprove a god. Science describes natural law. If they wish to fill the gaps whether big or small with the supernatural then let it be

No it has to do with what scientists, archeologist etc find or don't find. So far the debunked Genesis the backbone of the bible, Not a shred of evidence to suggest there was a great flood, Etc. etc. All depends on who you want to believe the preachers you have to have faith or what evidence has been dug up or not dug up.

These people who want to spend their lives telling people to prove or disprove god is wasting their times there plain isn't either way. Religions claim this country ( USA ) was founded on gods law forefathers say this country was founded on mans law The proof is in their quotes

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.

-- Abraham Lincoln,

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind?

It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.

-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"

You raise a very interesting point. I have always been naturally drawn to science, but not all of us are. Theists seem to want easy answers to everything, which obviously draws us Atheists into the debate with science in our back pocket, but science is bipartisan. In truth I would be an Atheist even if Evolution was not correct. So I think your point is valid, you don't have to be a science wiz to be an atheist.

Well scientific knowledge is a wonderful thing to have, but Atheism is purely the lack of belief in any deities or Gods. Don't worry about not fully understanding the Big bang and similar scientific principles, a lot of them (including the big bang theory) can be very convoluted and complex to get your head around, I know I find it difficult to get my head around..