Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Does science justify atheism?
Unless people can claim they are in possession of unlimited knowledge, they can never objectively deny the existence of God/gods.
The only element of God that is arguably reasonably implied from available evidence is as a "
". Using the word God here though is disingenuous as it comes with an unbelievable amount of other attributes and assumptions.
Atheism does not require justification. As a non-position (meaning to make no claim) there is nothing to prove.
A person can honestly and objectively be an atheist if they believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no God.
The logic states the opposite: the existence of divine requires a proof or evidence, nonexistence does not.
. Burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
You do not need knowledge to object a claim. Likewise, you can reject all the knowledge in the world, no matter how true it is, or how much of it you are exposed to.
Their knowledge wouldn't need to be unlimited, they would simply need to know there was no god. For instance, they might struggle with contract law.
Atheism does not require one to deny the existence of gods/gods. Only that they do not believe in them.
Rationality of thought would prescribe people shouldn't believe in things unless there is sufficient evidence.