Atheists are persistently labelled as arrogant or strident in their pursuit of a reasoned response from people of faith on the subject of their beliefs, or indeed religion as a whole. While atheists do tend to assertively argue against religion, it is with good reason that they do. The reason is an important one, a reason that eludes people of faith. That reason is evidence. With the backing of empirical, scientifically gleaned evidence an assertion can be considered factual. Without evidence, assuming it has not and cannot be obtained, the claim becomes null and void. Adhering to this rule is how we build belief, in all its forms. Imagine for a moment a world in which this rule was not carefully prescribed in most areas of our discourse. We would be unable to invent new things, or improve existing technology. Historical and scientific truths would remain the same hereafter and all medical research would cease. Judiciary systems the world over would derive verdicts and sentences from superstition and unreason. Globally, economic systems would be in ruin and wars would begin and end based solely on suspicion. Social discourse as we know it would come to a very sudden end.

I understand that this is a gross exaggeration, but whilst not completely breaking the rule of evidence, people of faith will bend the rule to varying degrees depending on the strength of their delusion. For example, a young earth creationist will tell you that God created Earth approximately 6,000 years ago, 6,000 years after the Neolithic Revolution. A fundamentalist Christian will sincerely expect you to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, despite parthenogenesis having never been naturally witnessed in mammals. Religion not only treads overtly on the toes of science, but also shuns the scientific method for obtaining evidence, rendering its ideologies no more intellectually admissible than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Some advocates of faith will simply ignore the evidence contrary to their belief, and skip immediately to noticing the holes present in current scientific theories. These holes are present and plentiful, and scientists will be the first to admit that this is the case, and doubtlessly work tirelessly (with the scientific method) to find the answers asked of them. Religious people will brazenly fill the holes with Iron Age mythology, claiming that they are inarguably correct because of what is written in their holy scriptures. Even on the subject of God, atheists will pronounce their beliefs unassertively. The Humanist bus campaign in January 2009 birthed the slogan, “There’s probably no god” on the side of London buses. Words like “probably” simply don’t appear in the religious vernacular. Religious people simply ‘know’ they are correct, rejecting any evidence that may suggest otherwise.

When faced with someone criticizing religion, religious people have a tendency to become extraordinarily offended. To criticize religion is to commit a social faux pas of epic proportions, often inviting such responses as “you should respect other people’s beliefs”, and “what is wrong with a personal belief in god?” This is a form of argument that religious moderates have coerced society into accepting. Nowhere else in our discourse are opinions and beliefs protected as those of religion are today. Do we respect the historical perspective of David Irving? No. Can we accept the political attitudes of Hitler and Pol Pot? I should sincerely hope not. If this is indeed the case, then why do we accept the views of a religion, in this case Islam, that promotes the death of apostates and adulterers? Atheists cannot continue shying away from religious debate for fear of causing offence. There is no shame or arrogance in exposing the ignorance of a proponent of such divisive and destructive ideas. Evidence is on our side, and as I said in the opening paragraph, it simply makes us more likely to be correct than they are.