Atheism and Their Subtle Double Standards—

I’ve been watching lot of Atheist/Theist debates online and can’t help to recognize the subtle double standards they use to refute theism.  These are few:

1. They use microevolution and by the use of inference, justify macroevolution [which is not observable scientifically].  On the other hand, they don’t allow theists the luxury of inference to argue for the Designer from the creation.
2. They are very quick to recognize and zealously distinguish between those who are true scientists [evolutionist] and those who misuse science [creationist].  At the same time, they don’t seem to be able to distinguish between those who held onto true religion and its perversion.
3. They claim that science does not have all the answer, but will find it one day!  But if the theist claims he does not have all the answer, then they’ll accuse him of committing intellectual suicide.  On the flipside, if the theist does claim to have an explanation, then he is arrogant and presumptuous for thinking he does.
4. If a scientist is corrected his response is, ‘well, that how science works; we learn from our mistakes’.  But, if they find flaws in religious thinking, they use that as the reason for disproving and discarding religion altogether.
5. When the scientist claim that science will eventually find an answer he is – a) putting just as much faith in science as those who believe the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ as the source of everything; b) so closed minded that he cannot see anything beyond physical realm w/ its explanation via scientific method.
1. On a side note, from my few observations, I’ve come to recognize that for the most part, those who are adamantly atheists are the ones who specialize on Biology.  But when you move beyond and observe scientists who study Cosmology and Physics, their minds are more open to accepting a possibility of an Intelligent Design.  Of course, biologists admit that evolution does not deal w/ origins of universe and anything beyond the beginning of life on earth.  But then, why are they trying to force their view as the only way to explain reality?

These are some patterns I observed.  And quite contrary to what Dr. Dawkins believes, we theists don’t claim to have all the answers either.  All we know is that this unknowable being broke into this physical world and revealed himself to few of us for some unknown reason – we are just trying to make sense of all these.  And of course, if you deny the reality of miracles and supernatural from the premise, I don’t know how else to prove God who is by definition a supernatural being.  That only says that perhaps the paradigm used for analyzing the existence of God is flawed.