atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Shtef]

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Shtef

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

That's true. Agnosticism is the most reasonable belief system, in that essentially no belief is involved concerning deity at all, its existance nor non-existance is really contemplated as the adherants believe we cannot know either way.

But true atheism would be the total lack of any belief concerning deity, and would occur only in a culture where the concept of deity does not exist at all. This version would be scientific as it does not involve the rejection of a possibility without sufficient evidence.

However, atheism as we know it occurs when people acquire the concept of what deity is (and in our cultures it is impossible not to have a concept of deity) and then reject it. This of course is as unscientific as accepting it, since there is no evidence either way.
Weak atheism is the most reasonable form, as those who have this belief doubt the existance of God, but still have enough sense to know that they cannot be 100% certain of deity's non-existance.

Strong atheism is an irrational faith based belief system where the followers have deluded themselves into believing that they know for certain that deity does not exist. These are the religious fundamentalists of the non-theist world.

[sparc872]

I agree with Halcyon. Weak atheism can and should be considered scientific. The vast majority of scientific evidence to date points away from the existence of a god therefore, a good theory would to say that there is no God. Very similar to saying that there is gravity because evidence points to it. I understand that the existence of God is not testable, but when we examine the natural world and see no room for God there it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God is nonexistent.

I see strong atheism as taken just as much on faith as theism. Weak atheism is much closer to agnosticism, just leaning more towards the nonexistence of a deity.

[Ceridwen018]

I agree, Halcyon.

Also, Shtef, in the scientific world, a lack of evidence for something also constitutes its nonexistence, which is why science also considers leprechauns, unicorns, and fugglyploofs to be nonexistent. Doesn't sound a bit silly to you to say, "You say unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence for them, and therefore I cannot prove or even support their existence, but I'dlike to see you try to prove they DON'T exist!!"

In general, proving a negative is impossible. You cannot prove, for instance, that a certain event will never occur. Because if it is true that that event will never occur, then it will never occur and be able to be analyzed. However, people who believe that the event will occur will say that it just hasn't occurred yet. Does that make any sense to you?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

That's true. Agnosticism is the most reasonable belief system, ...

Strong atheism is an irrational faith based belief ...

Properly understood, agnosticism is a methodology.
Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Properly understood, agnosticism is a methodology.

That's better, it didn't feel right calling agnosticism a belief system, but i couldn't think of the correct phrase. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

I disagree, claiming to know for certain that deity does not exist is as irrational as any form of theism.
Concluding that God does not exist due to lack of supportive evidence is entirely rational.

Drawing a conclusion and claiming certain knowledge are two entirely different things.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by jay

Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

But in deference to the OP, how can any conclusion that doesn't firstly proclaim ambivalence possibly be rational?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I disagree, claiming to know for certain that ...

While I'm sure that no strawman was intended, I'm equally sure that science rarely claims that it knows a posteriori truths "for certain". The atheist who says "there is no God" is saying no more than a zoologist who says "there are no Pixies". Both are speaking in the vernacular and claiming: given all available evidence, the belief in {X} is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Both would advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

While I'm sure that no strawman was intended, I'm equally sure that science rarely claims that it knows a posteriori truths "for certain". The atheist who says "there is no God" is saying no more than a zoologist who says "there are no Pixies". Both are speaking in the vernacular and claiming: given all available evidence, the belief in {X} is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Both would advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available.

Exactly Jay, i couldn't possibly agree more. But what you are describing isn't strong atheism as i understand it.

A strong atheist will never "advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available" as this asserts that there may be the possibility of deity's existance.