Why do atheists rely so much on science, logic and reason?
As others have already mentioned…it works, just like Tylenol works for headaches, body aches, fevers and toothaches, and why a cold glass of water on a hot summer day cools you off and makes you feel good. What else is there to say?
The Matrix is unable to answer, but until we have some sort of other answer, science is best of course.
I for one will not go on blind faith on something with lack for evidence.
Me: raises hand in affirmation of this statement, from a personal point of view.
I’m bumping this, in part it is for @Sherlock-Holmes, so the next time he talks about the bs made up term scientism, he has some notion of why scientists and some atheists are minded to challenge religious apologists who have a dangerously ill-informed notion of science and its methods.
I assume the original poster meant flawed as well, not “retarded”. Nevertheless the notion we should not place our confidence in a method that has entirely transformed our understanding of the natural world and universe exponentially, in a just a few hundred years, because it isn’t infallible is pretty idiotic.
However lets try this, to any theist, when you get sick do you go and seek the best medical help science has to offer, or do you get the local boneshaker or witch doctor to cast a spell and remove the demons or curse causing your prostate cancer, or just pray it goes into remission?
See I have a sneaky feeling we all know what the honest answer would be, from any remotely educated or intelligent person. So a better question is why the fuck do theists who ask such asinine questions bother with science at all, why not just pray instead, unless of course they think prayer is not as efficacious as science? I mean I know there is objective research into the efficacy of intercessory prayer, and it demonstrated that the prayers had no discernible effect, and I’m aware of no objective evidence that prayer has any discernible difference from pot luck, but even if apologists use the usual copout answer of why not do both, the obvious answer is that this would imply science does work else why bother with it at all, and that then in answer to the thread OP, is why I put my fucking confidence in it. It has been objectively demonstrated to be overwhelmingly accurate in increasing our understanding of the natural world and universe, and that’s why it works, unlike voodoo, witchdoctors, and praying of course, which rely on anecdotal claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.
I’d forgotten how funny this clown was, do you think the fact he was in Amsterdam could explain why his eyes were failing to properly relate reality to his brain.
The comedy gold of him claiming to be running a spell checker, and then coming up with Elektromagnetic is just hilarious as well.
@Sheldon - What specifically have I written about science that you take issue with? Please quote me verbatim rather than paraphrasing me. I’m always happy to defend things I’ve actually said but less enthusiastic about defending things you simply believe I’ve said.
For the record “scientism” is no more “made up” than is the “popular” definition of atheism (which was “made up” by Antony Flew in 1976)
All words are arbitrary in origin if that’s what you mean. The primary definition of scientism is the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists. it’s the propaganda version religious extremists have conjured that’s bullshit.
It appears scientism is a philosophy 
I’ll just stick with the method.
That site is pushing a religious agenda, I’d need a lot more than their say so that scientism exists in any meaningful way, let alone that it is a significant or widely held philosophy in the propaganda way religious apologetics peddles the phrase so indiscriminately against anyone who defends science and its methods against religious superstition.
An over reliance on science - according to whom, and compared to what?
A belief that science alone can answer all questions - again according to whom, and what questions is anyone suggesting science can play no part in answering and why?
Check out the video in this link Our Mission - Big Think
“Why the world is going crazy—and how to win back our minds”
Apparently it’s all because we’ve abandoned religion, well quelle surprise. Like @Sherlock-Holmes, they are simply attacking science with dishonest propaganda to peddle their own religious agenda.
@Sheldon - I see, so just your imagination then, your interpretation of me, not able to quote anything specifically, very well
A rather preposterous lie, since I offered very specific claims you had made, that anyone can read for themselves, are you denying you claimed science is not based on facts, more than once?
More inuendo, what is written there that you challenge? anything? Also is your definition of “pushing a religious agenda” someone who simply disagrees with your own beliefs?
Read the post for once before making a knee jerk response, it’s in a video posted on the site, I linked the site ffs man. Dear oh dear… 
Your dishonesty is really becoming tedious now.
Everything I’ve written in this forum about science is true, I stand by it 100% and will readily defend it in the face any challenge from anyone.
To understand where fanatical rabid anti-intellectual atheism errs, you can likely do no better that listening to this talk by Berlinski. This is where I stand, I share his view and position on this subject:
Then why lie, and falsely claim it was just my imagination then?
You really are a very tedious liar sorry, I have tried avoid stating this bluntly, but you are so relentlessly dishonest I’m done soft soaping you. If you genuinely believe what you posted, that science is never based on facts, then no, it is not 100% correct, it is risible. Either that or fact is another word you don’t understand the meaning of. Or both of course.
The problem is that you keep demanding people quote you, denying you said things, then when they do you dishonestly ignore it and roll on. Your lies and dishonesty are really starting to wear thin now, it’s even testing my patience. Like your demand someone relate an objective fact about the natural world, and when I did you ignored it.
For the very simple reason I did not invoke “religious extremist propaganda definition of scientism” and I did not write “science has no facts”, these are your own interpretations. Since you seem to sincerely believe I said this and there’s no evidence I did, it can only be attributed to your imagination or imprecise recollection.
Either share the quote or stop complaining.
Quod erat demonstrandum. You are a liar…
