David Dawson’s column about atheism is an example of hypocrisy.
He began with the statement “Atheists have a singular way of looking at the world.” As an atheist, I would like to know what exactly is singular about not believing in god(s). Those who follow a religion exclude other religions from the subjective realm of theistic truth (perhaps with the exception of the Baha’i). Atheists simply reject them all.
His article continued “atheists do make very broad assumptions about religion”. In this very statement he does exactly that for which he denigrates atheists. I personally find many elements of religion to be fascinating, many of which I have borrowed in the construction of my own philosophy, but according to David Dawson, “regular atheists” don’t take interest in such things. What is a regular atheist anyway?
Next he accuses atheists of abusing science. He alludes to the hypothetico-deductive reasoning that science uses to test ideas, but seems not to understand it when he claims that there is no single observation to support that “there is no God.” Mr. Dawson should note that there is no single observation to support the absence of the Loch Ness monster, or that there are no maniacal leprechauns in search of their missing gold. In fact, no absence has ever been supported by an observation because this is not possible. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for any entity. Is it therefore an “arrogant conclusion” to disbelieve in leprechauns?
Mr. Dawson states that atheism requires a leap of faith, and here he is wrong again. Faith is belief in something that is unobserved and atheism does not do this. Eventually he resorts to insults by stating that the core reason for atheism’s “inaccurate approach” is a lack of intellectual curiosity. That is quite an offensive statement from someone who attempts to speak against broad generalizations. In essence, David Dawson’s demonstrates his own narrow mindedness about a belief system that is as valid as any theistic one.
Finally, as a scientist, I contend that one cannot conclusively debate religion because an untestable set of ideas can never be supported or rejected by evidence. I will, however, debate the merits of open mindedness and the dangers of stereotyping a group of people based on their belief regarding deities. In this instance, it is David Dawson who picked a fight, not the atheists.
They want an answer instantly when, in reality, scientists will be the first to tell you they're not there yet, but they're working towards it.
They just say "God did it of course" and that is a good enough answer. They want facts and figures yet all they believe in is what they read in a fictional book.
"So, criticizing atheists is a major sin, but making fun of those with religious beliefs is all just fun & games"
I whole-heartedly agree with him on this.
Also, the argument that atheists have faith in science galls me. There is a difference between faith, belief without evidence, and trust, a belief based on evidence and probabilities.
Of course I'm not saying that I am the arbiter of truth.
I am arguing that we need an outside reference point to know truth.
Can you explain to me how that is arrogant?
So, if you, personally don't understand how a concept can be valid, then it cannot be true?
You are the arbiter of what can and cannot be true, based on your ability to understand things?
You must be the smartest person in the whole world.
My, you believers certainly are arrogant.
Open-minded my @ss. HA!