A fair question. A fair answer. I go by their veracity. If something they've predicted turns out to be true, I test it if I am able. If I am not, I'm inclined to take them at their word. The mathematics that scientists used to predict the age of the Earth, are also the mathematics that were used to create thermonuclear weapons, Magnetic Resonance Imagers, Electronics, and many other useful things in our lives.

We can't possibly try out everything we hear. So we read about others experiments and then science as a whole says yes or no to several criteria, which include things along the lines of is the test group random, are the condition set up so that only 1 variable is changed at a time, is there a direct link between behavior and stimulus, and MOST importantly is this test REPEATABLE. . When's the last time you were able to repeat gods pillar of fire, parting of the re(e)d sea, 7 plagues, burning talking bush, never? Well then your religion is held to a much lower standard of belief than science. In fact the difference is reasonable belief in science and faith in religion. . In simple terms it works out to can cats fly? Person A claims they can, but they just don't do it where we can see it, and Person B say they can't. B can't prove they don't but A can't prove they do. Who's belief is more justified?

Nice try. No, I don't. But I also don't accept it unconditionally. My acceptance of it is conditional and subject to refutation Most modern scientific theories however have little impact on my life, or my understanding of the way the world works. For this reason, I can accept them as likely true so long as they have enough evidence to make them plausible based upon my current understanding of the laws of the universe. The great thing is that if they should make a claim that is both important, and far enough removed from what I know of the laws of nature, I CAN test them (and often do). I can guarantee you, if a scientific theory postulated my eternal torment as a result for my not believing it is true, I sure the hell would make a point to test it

Religious fundamental, do you blindly follow your faith without ever questioning the doctrine being pushed down your throat? Do you ever stop to wonder that maybe the institution of religion and many of it's doctrines are counter-intuitive and ill-supported. Or do you blindly follow faith without any thought to your own reasoning?

Science itself is fallible. However, science and knowledge are also infinitely adaptable and constantly subject to review. Science requires that certain criteria must be followed to produce untainted and repeatable results which others will accept as true. As a layman, I cannot always scientifically verify everything that a particular scientist claims to be true, but I can read, view and sometimes touch the evidence provided and discuss any opposing theories which usually back up or refute whatever claims are being made. From that process I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of most claims. Science provides much in the way of tangible evidence and as the old saying goes, the evidence often speaks for itself. As I have already been through this process to determine the veracity of the existence of a god, I can easily disregard any faith-based, scriptural or anecdotal arguments and conclude for myself that no such being exists. Has your faith ever adapted because of tangible evidence?

For every scientist with a new theory...there are a thousand other scientist behind him ready to try and prove him wrong. If the best they can do is merely to confirm the new theory...then its most probably right. Simple as.... The difference between scientist and theists is scientists are willing to except when they are proven wrong.

NO athists don't do that they are as close minded as christian extremists who don't listen to reason. this is why i am an agnostic, agnostics question almost everything. don't be so naive to believe we try everysingle thing that would be a worthless kind of life to live.

1) Your question is incomplete. Did you even bother looking it over before submitting? 2) I as an individual don't have to test each and every thing I hear, if (A) I know that the people who I am receiving information from are reliable and highly qualified, and (B) The information itself is scientifically credible. For example: If 100 prominent doctors tell me that they have found a cure for the Influenze, I'd listen up! By contrast, if 1,000,000 priests tell me that there is an invisible sky-guardian who demands that I follow Holy Book X, it doesn't really matter because (A) Priests reach their conclusions through faith - they are not typically scientifically qualified, and (B) The claim itself is dubious; not to mention, it is in direct conflict with the claims of priests from other religions.

Actually, looks like I have a whole five new scientific theories to try out today. I read about them on the internet in the secret atheist chat rooms where all the scientists give us science to try out. I'll have to get back to you later with my answer, since I'm going to be busy with all the science and trying out new scientific theories.

If it is something that matters to my life, I will read up on it. I try to read from sources for and against the opinion. If it is possible, given my limited resources, I will try to observe the phenomenon. If it is something that does not matter to my life, I might read with limited interest, but I'm not going to go out of my way to figure it out.

Well, this is why you have to publish your theory along with a detailed report on your hypothesis, your methods, and your experimental or theoretical proof. A theory isn't just accepted on someone's say-so. A theory is not accepted until it has been rigorously tested by more than one party. If results are not reproducible (meaning an unconnected person in a totally different laboratory could not perform the same experiment and get the same results) they are thrown out. News reports tend to jump on a single set of results and report them as if they were fact, but this is not scientific. It does not become an accepted scientific theory unless it is carefully explained, proven, and reproduced multiple times. When I see evidence of this process taking place, I don't need to test it out for myself, because I can see that it is adequately proven. The evidence is right there in front of me, because the scientific papers produce the data/microscopic images/etc that demonstrate the theory and repeat the results to show that it wasn't a fluke. If I was very skeptical of the journal publishing the results and thought the process was not sufficiently rigorous, and I had significant interest in the subject and resources to do it, I might test the hypothesis for myself. I hope to be able to do so someday, actually. It's practically a sport to disprove shoddy science and it's death to your career if you are discovered to be fabricating results, which can happen every once in a great while. So we can feel confident that while we haven't yet perfected our knowledge, it is the very best explanation that we currently have based on the evidence. This is how we refine our knowledge over the years. The whole process is designed so that we DON'T have to repeat everything ad infinitum, but can share our knowledge and add to it over time. Standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. (What this has to do with atheists, I'm not sure. We take nothing on faith, true. But where there's evidence, we're happy to accept a proven theory.)

No - but there is plausibility, the ability to check for myself if I so desired and, yes, trustworthiness. If a scientific theory survives the hundreds or thousands of attempts to prove it false pressed upon it by other scientists, then it has a fair chance of being accurate. On the other hand, books full of tales of talking snakes, talking donkeys, giants, supernatural beings that root women and make them have babies, people coming back from the dead, demons taking over bodies and so on - THEY are unproven, unobserved these days and implausible - so it is fair to read them with quite some skepticism...

Scientific theories are observable and eventually become laws or are disproven. . Religions are ancient superstitions of invisible marvels that nobody understands that are believed just because it is commonly believed by others.

Most theories aren't preached to my face. The scienctific theories don't tell me how to live my life. Most of them don't directly affect my life, so honestly I don't care enough about the new and up coming theories that come out every so often. Also believing in ancient texts that can't be proved (which is why faith is needed) and using the theories to see if light can bend are two different things in my book.