Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You have an unwavering faith in the absence of god despite having no proof there is no god. That is a belief system. You can rattle off as many things as you want that you don't believe in but but it's still a belief that you can't prove and yet you adamently believe
If you honestly can't see how atheism is a belief in something that can't be prove then prove to me there is no god.
Most people who claim to be atheists are actually agnostics - not claiming to be able to prove that there's no god, but simply pointing out that there's no evidence for it.
There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to establish the presence of a God - nothing but third hand (or even more distant) claims. And most of those are full of self-contradictory statements (read the bible some time to see how many times it contradicts itself). You may believe in Bigfoot, if you wish, but I'm going to say I don't believe it unless there's real, verifiable evidence.
Which position is more rational?
Originally Posted by ecs
Indeed. In fact Science and Religion don't interfere, as the scientific method states it only applies to things that can be physically measured, which leaves the supernatural outside of Science. This means you'll never be able to prove the absence of supernatural with the scientific method, or otherwise you'd be using it wrongly. At the same time, Religion, when truly practiced, adheres to Science in the things that can be physically measured.
Atheists who "just trust Science", are, well, having faith in something they cannot prove (they cannot prove any knowledge for themselves, they need to trust what others say). And you know, quite a few research papers have been proven in fraud, with researchers lying about the results in the paper...
You're horribly confused.
First, while science doesn't claim to be able to disprove religion, there are countless examples where religious people make claims that are contrary to science. In those cases, science is based on facts, reasoning, and logic while religion is based on nothing but mindless belief.
Age of the earth. Many religious groups still claim that the earth is under 10,000 years old. (One recent poll indicated that as many as 40% of Americans fall into that category). Their evidence? They claim that it's in the bible - even though there's absolutely no such claim in the bible. So not only are they using hearsay evidence, but they're even misquoting the evidence that's there.
Scientifically, there is evidence from almost every field of science that establishes that the age of the earth is in the billions of years range. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, biology, genetics, radiation physics, and almost every field of science has evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
Now, a logical, thinking person has to choose between two options:
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. God did actually create the earth 6,000 years ago but did it in such a way to fool us into thinking it was older. He created it with fossil record intact. Radioactive isotopes partially decayed. Photons already enroute from quintillions of stars. Evolution occurred at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than at present and then it magically slowed down almost overnight. And so on.
Can a scientist prove that #2 didn't happen? No. By its very nature, if God were real and wanted to make it look like the earth was billions of years old, then he could do so. If someone wants to believe that God gave us brains only so that he could trick us, they're free to believe that. But what they can't do is deny all the evidence around us. They can't deny evolution - it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They can't deny the fossil record. They can't pretend that Jesus rode a dinosaur.
IOW, religious people need to get over the idea that their views trump factual reality. They can claim that "god made it that way" if they wish, but they need to stop pretending that the facts don't exist.