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.
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
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.
Footnotes and Documentation: