Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Does science justify atheism?
Atheism does not require justification. As a non-position (meaning to make no claim) there is nothing to prove.
Atheism is arguably nothing more than a disinclination toward blind faith. The faithful posit God is real but all five senses indicate otherwise. The burden of proof then falls on the faithful, since God is not arguing his case. Atheists need no justification.
If one understands the scientific method, it is understandable that there is no onus to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence.
Science doesn't attempt to prove a negative. That is not the purpose of science.
This argument relies on the scientific method, however.
This is conflation of atheism with agnosticism. Atheism is a truth claim and it most certainly has to justify itself. It most certainly is a position.
Many atheists in the US are actively evangelizing their view that no deities exist and publicly attacking religious viewpoints. This changes US atheism from a philosophical stance into a social and political movement that does require justification.
The fact that there is a name for atheism means that it is certainly a position.
A position that something or one does not exist isn't a "non-position". Its a position on the existence or non-existence of the object or entity.
While the term "atheism" generally means a lack of faith in a deity, that does not mean that it is a "non-position." It simply means that the belief in a deity was traded for another position.
If atheism is a non-position, then it can be ignored as such.
Atheism claims that God does not exist, even though there is no proof to support this claim. Atheism is a faith system as much as any other religion is because it is holding faith in the belief that God is not real.