Science makes Atheism hard to believe

Whether you adhere to String Theory or not, the binary pattern still exists.Yeah, but it matters if that binary pattern actually applies to reality. Secular scientist and biologist, David BerlinskiAppeals to authority are bad enough, but they're worse when the person you're appealing to doesn't even have authority in the field you say they do. He's not a scientist, he's a philosopher by education. Darwinism is a theory. Why?"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge"(https://en.wikipedia.org...)The move of atheism was sparked by Darwinian Evolution. It was to make God unneccessary. If God was unneccessary, we didn't need a god.[citation needed]You do realize that not everyone has to have an explanation for everything, right? People can be atheists and just not know or claim to know all the answers. Or any of the answers, really. Not everyone is in the same mindset where every question has to have a positive answer. It's not a matter of whether God is necessary or not because one can simply admit ignorance and move on with life. 82% of atheists believe in Darwinian Evolution where other groups average about 43%. So, Darwinian Evolution has become a key general component of Atheism. It's a core belief. This is a non-sequitur. Even if that logic could be considered sound, only 80% of a group believing in something could hardly make a case for it being a core belief. I can understand a few outliers not believing in an important aspect of a belief system, but 1 in 5? Let's not get ridiculous. The only thing that constitutes an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Nothing else, no matter how common among atheists, is a "core" part of atheism. Change of kind? NopeDefine "kinds" please. "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in." -Richard Dawkins... "Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -Richard Dawkins Thanks for quoting Dawkins, I guess? I don't really care what he has to say because he's not my religious leader. I disagree that accepting ignorance is a bad thing, at least in most cases. According to my research and the research of others, his version of evolution is dogmatic, faith based, and delusional, a denial of evidence, a denial of reality. Whether or not I accept your claim at face value (I don't), I still don't care. I'm not Dawkins. Perhaps we should try sticking to the topic at hand? Just a thought. You believe in magic, get God by Darwinian means by infinity as its highest possible and conceivable being, or you get God by unknown means/self existance. Either way, philosophically, you get a god.Infinity is an abstract concept, not a god. I'd appreciate if we didn't play the semantics game. Although, I guess it's my fault for not establishing a strong definition of "god" right off the bat. What philosophy do you espouse?I told you, and I have it in my bio thing or whatever. Agnosticism. I don't know whether God exists. * Then you quote Dawkins again, and I'm not even going to bother to quote you here, because again, it has no bearing on the topic at hand. Because of the origin and probability of the elements and reality ever coming to be, Hoyle stated his findings had shaken his atheism. There's no way he could have known the probability of the origin of the elements or "reality". And if you also include life in that, there's no way anyone could know that either because we don't know how large the universe is.