Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods. This statement is an obvious lie unto itself, as it contains several claims: 1) atheism makes no claims; 2) there is no God; 3) there are no gods; 4) the universe is not created; 5) atheism is the default position.
Rather
than providing evidence for his positions as required by the rules of
science and evidence, Richard Dawkins instead attempts to ridicule
and marginalize Francis Collins and other scientists who believe in
God, comparing their scientific positions to believing in the
spaghetti monster, while stating anyone who believes in God is
"delusional".
This is a gross contradiction of logic,
science and reason and the very worst example of trying to compare
apples with oranges imaginable. The obvious reason being, if we
eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren't left having to explain
our existence along with the rest of the universe.
The true
default position of science is that there is a physical reality
called "universe". The default question of science then becomes,
how and why is there a physical reality called "universe". Even
Richard Dawkins agrees with this, stating that the "God question"
is "central to all of science" and cannot be ignored.
But
Dawkins then contradicts himself, claiming the "onus" belongs on
those who say there is a God. The "onus" remains on every human
being to explain how and why there is a physical reality called
universe. Atheists and agnostics don't get a pass on the "God
question" any more than the rest of us.
And,
the history of science clearly demonstrates that the onus belongs on
anyone contradicting previously held beliefs of the majority of
scientists. To say atheists aren't required to provide supporting
evidence for their baseless superstitions, is to say Copernicus could
have just stood up in a roomful of his peers, claimed the earth goes
around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any
supporting evidence.
This
is exactly the position many modern atheists take, a clear violation
of the rules of science and evidence and known history of science. Another well-known Richard Dawkins position is that the universe
represents nothing but blind, pitiless indifference, exactly as one
would expect if there is no God.
This statement openly
contradicts the known evidence of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer,
Tubman, Keller, Parks, King, Chavez and literally billions of people
who have demonstrated the opposite of "blind, pitiless,
indifference". Obviously if people, who are part of the universe,
have concepts of both good and evil, the universe clearly does not
represent nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
What
is called "science" rarely represents 100% proven fact. Rather,
science when applied accurately, is the best conclusion based on the
current evidence. And, science requires evidence to overturn
previously held scientific positions.
Is
Richard Dawkins really a scientist? Would the Greeks allow someone
making such claims into the Academy or ban him for life? You
Decide.
