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.
is a member of the 
25 comments
WHY is there something (a universe) instead of nothing?
WHY are we on a planet that supports life, when life seems so improbable in the universe?
How did we get from non-living matter to living matter?
And WHY does what I do matter (in the billion year history of this something here instead of nothing)?I guess I am thinking more in the ultimate sense. Does anything ultimately matter, not just here and now? If there is in fact nothing outside our material world, then logically, there is no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no alternate meaning in life, and no human free will... that is what leads me to nihilism.So, I agree that if the WHY question doesn't matter, we have little to no disagreement.However, I feel that there needs to be a just explanation for WHY things are how we observe them to be.I am sorry for the offense and confusion.
ThinkPresuppositionally, inanimate chemicals lack the ability to feel. Emotions *are* regulated and triggered by chemical reactions in the body; this interaction makes drugs such as anti-depressants possible. That we don't know the origins of life doesn't mean much--after all, at one point, we as humans also didn't know that the earth revolved around the sun or that our genetic traits are read from our DNA. Having no explanation for something doesn't automatically default to "Well, it must be God, then." A leap of faith requires a firm belief in an explanation that has no logical sequence preceding. Evolutionary theory does show a logical sequence through the different kingdoms, phyla, classes... et cetera. That is the information on which scientists base their ideas--observable, recordable data that follows a logical sequence. The idea in science is to follow the logical sequence until you arrive at a conclusion--not take a leap of faith on unsupported evidence.
Your opinion of natural selection demonstrates your scientific ignorance. To say "I agree" with something that is derived from the scientific method is, well, risible--science isn't a matter of opinion, no matter what some people may say. Again, it comes from observable, recordable fact. There is quite a large difference between the word "theory" in regular conversation and theories in science; in science, a theory isn't an opinion at all.
For the larger question, why take offense--I don't have to explain why I have emotions when I observe and experience them every day. They exist, no matter where one believes that they come from. The same goes for free will; although it may be influenced by various chemical reactions in the body, it does, indeed, exist, regardless of its origin. As for Mr. Dawson's "chemically determined view of things," his views on atheists are not precisely the offense. The way that he chose to express them is the offense. His ignorance about atheism and his decision to expound publicly upon that topic created the offense. Be purposely obtuse if you like, but even in the scientific world, we don't believe that human beings are unfeeling robots. Again, you betray your ignorance of science.
Nihilism is not the logical conclusion of atheism at all, by the by. If you want a reference point for the meaning of life as an atheist, you have millennia of life that has preceded you to look back on. If I were dropped onto another planet at birth, I may have a harder time with a reference point; with literature, music, science, history, genealogy, archeology, architecture, art, fashion, food, and the multitude of facets of the human experience to study, it really matters very little to me as an individual how the first spark of life occurred.
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!