Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser
Science doesn't confirm that there are no gods, but it is consistent with that possibility.
But this is a straw man argument of no interest to most atheists, who are also agnostic. This agnostic atheist agrees that to assert as fact that there are no gods is to make an unsupportable claim of knowledge that isn't available to any of us. What this author calls atheism, and what most atheists call gnostic atheism, is not a justifiable position.
And to make that error is not to contradict science, but to make a logical error - a leap of faith.
The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose.
There is no flaw in atheism. It is merely the "No" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods. If you ask me if I believe in gods, I'll tell you that I don't. How can one be wrong about that?
For the rational skeptic, since there is no reason to believe in gods, so he doesn't. That is not a choice. The reason and evidence based thinker believes whatever is convincingly demonstrated and fails to believe the rest not as a matter of choice, but because that's how his mind works.
Those who believe things because they want them to be true are faith based thinkers. That's a different kind of mind.
Therefore, there is no rational reason to believe that gods exist. That's a basic tenet of rational skepticism - all claims should be challenged, and none accepted as true without supporting evidence. Even then, belief is less than 100% certain, that is, has some measure of tentativeness to it, and should be accompanied by open-mindedness, or the willingness to consider new evidence and revise one's belief or degree of belief accordingly.
but it at least can offer a positive purpose.
Religion offers no positive purpose or value to the person whose emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and moral needs can be met without it. The fact that a god belief makes a person feel more complete is not necessarily a good thing. Benefiting from a prosthetic leg is great if you can, but isn't it better not to need one?
And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.
You are using a definition of atheism that excludes the possibility of simultaneous agnosticism, one most self-identifying atheists reject for just this reason. If you want to argue that gnostic atheism is a logical error, you won't get any disagreement here.
But if you want to discuss agnostic atheism, well, that' really the only rational position one can take. Any other position is faith based.
a scientist is quoted, since atheists always seem to imply that their view is nothing but scientific.
We do? My atheism is nothing but the inevitable result of requiring a reason to believe anything, and having none for believing in gods. That the full extent of it. It is not even a belief about reality, but about what an individual's criteria for belief should be, and whether theism rises to that standard. Science has nothing to do with it.
It's not purely a definition. It's a self-identification. That's huge. That's about a whole worldview, sort of thing, like someone would say they were a Christian.
Atheism is not a worldview just as theism is not a world view. Atheism is the absence of theistic world views like Catholicism or Santeria, leaving room for any of several possible atheistic worldviews. Mine is called secular humanism. Another's might be astrology, which assigns the role theists give to conscious god to unconscious forces emanating from the stars. Another's might be Stalinism. They're all godless worldviews, although only the first is rational and just.
