<<<a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick – in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)

In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be i...

<<<a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick – in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)

In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will. >>> from article

Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.

This is about as effective an argument as trying to claim that atheism is a religion. It is an attempt to paint an opponent in a weaker light, ironically through the projection of the weakness of faith and religion when it is put to the test against evidence. It is a "proof by assertion" fallacy.

It also smells terribly of the "there are no atheists", "people never disbelieve in god, they are simply angry at god" or "ex-christians were never real christians in the first place" arguments. Very obvious projection of a believers refusal t...

Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.

This is about as effective an argument as trying to claim that atheism is a religion. It is an attempt to paint an opponent in a weaker light, ironically through the projection of the weakness of faith and religion when it is put to the test against evidence. It is a "proof by assertion" fallacy.

It also smells terribly of the "there are no atheists", "people never disbelieve in god, they are simply angry at god" or "ex-christians were never real christians in the first place" arguments. Very obvious projection of a believers refusal to face reality by claiming that atheists/secularists refuse to accept god.

In other words, an attempt to level the playing field by defining opponents by the same shortcomings of their own belief system. How many times has a believer made the statement "There is nothing you can tell me that will shake my faith"?

Since the believer cannot provide the evidence requested by the non believer to prove the god claim then the only recourse is to claim that the non-believer wouldn't believe the evidence anyway. It really shows the desperate position of apologetic arguments. Word games are their only recourse.

Can freedom be found in constant skepticism?

Can understanding and discovery be found by faith? Or better yet, can faith exist in the presence of fact?

As a point of mere empirical fact, he would NOT have to take that position to be a respected scientist.

Fail.

A scientist works with the scientific method to draw conclusions from the facts and evidence. It is those that claim understanding through conjecture and/or faith that reveal how biased their position is and it undermines their ability to make an informed decision. I find it par for the course that believerse would try and twist this as "atheists wouldn't accept real evidence anyway". Dawkins finds no evidence to support the god claim so believers take the position that he is wrong because he wouldn't accept that evidence anyway. Wow, talk about desparetely trying to...

As a point of mere empirical fact, he would NOT have to take that position to be a respected scientist.

Fail.

A scientist works with the scientific method to draw conclusions from the facts and evidence. It is those that claim understanding through conjecture and/or faith that reveal how biased their position is and it undermines their ability to make an informed decision. I find it par for the course that believerse would try and twist this as "atheists wouldn't accept real evidence anyway". Dawkins finds no evidence to support the god claim so believers take the position that he is wrong because he wouldn't accept that evidence anyway. Wow, talk about desparetely trying to maintain your belief!

Of course believers will paint Dawkins and any others as having a bias against religion because they project their own bias for it. It is the "with us or against us" attitude, never stopping to consider that demanding proof is exactly why atheism is neutral to belief. If non believers were to simply deny god then they would be no better than believers.

Atheist do not (let me repeat) do not deny god. Atheists simply see no evidence to believe. Atheists find no evidence to support the claims of god as being shown to be true. There is just no reason to believe.