A New Way of Looking at Atheism..

[Mister Agenda]

Atheism is ,as we all know, a negative position towards belief in a deity or deities,

So far, so good.

claiming that the believer in god didn't base his belief on conclusive scientific grounds, and since this religious position is held regardless of science, therefore it can be considered unscientific or even a belief in a myth.

What? The only claim an atheist makes re: atheism is that he, she, or it doesn't believe in any gods. You've moved on to a criticism of of religous faith seamlessly, but there's a seam there.

if this understanding of atheism is true, then I might proceed to my point.

I have some bad news for you.

we can see that the validity of the atheistic position is assumed to be taken from the validity of science, thus appointing science to be the higher judge of the validity of any claim.

The validity of the atheistic position is taken from the assumption that the person claiming not to believe in any gods is being truthful.

How did we know that science is what evaluates every single claim?

It doesn't validate any claims. It falsifies some claims when they are at odds with observable reality, but the closest it comes to validating a claim is that it can establish that a reasonable person should accept it, provisionally.

we knew from the idea that everything in life is matter/energy,and science is the most reliable way to know matter, i.e. to know everything.

Well, it's the most reliable way to learn about anything that can be detected, anyway. Science isn't based on materialism, it's just that material is all it's been able to find, so far.

However, if we believe that life is not only matter/energy, that we live in two worlds physical and metaphysical, then science (i.e. material science) will still obtain its respected status, but only in the material world, because we can't enter the immaterial world with science‘s material tools.

It's nice that your dualism doesn't interfere with your respect for science as a method for investigating things that we can tell exist.

In the case of belief in the materiality of everything in life, and the case of belief in the material and immaterial worlds together, science has nothing to say. Scientifically, we cannot know whether life is only material nor material and immaterial. Therefore, the belief that life is only material is unscientific (but not necessarily anti-scientific).

In science, the null hypothesis must be disproved as most likely in order for a differing claim to be considered valid. The null hypothesis for an immaterial existence has not been disproved. It is perfectly scientific to assume the null hypothesis regarding immaterial (rather than the abstract) existence. I'm not sure the term 'immaterial existence' even gets off the ground as a coherent hypothesis. And the belief would be that there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief that life is not only material, which is true. Science could be wrong about that, but it's self-correcting, so if evidence is found to support an immaterial component (beyond the data stored in and software running on our biological computers) to life, then science will support that hypothesis.

Since the belief that there is no immaterial world is unscientific, then it is unscientific to use science as the most reliable way to evaluate every claim. Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position.

Not believing that there is an immaterial world in the absence of evidence to support the notion is quite scientific. Actively believing there isn't one is more a personal choice than science, but since there is no requirement that atheists actually believe there is no immaterial world ( indeed, there are atheists who believe in ghosts and/or astrology) it cannot be said that atheism is an unscientfic position on those grounds.

That said, atheism is not a scientific position. It is an opinion on the existence of gods. No science required. If you don't believe, you are an atheist.

On the claim 'believing there is no immaterial world is unscientific' you've done a bit better job. Only problem is most atheists around here just hold the null hypothesis as the default until given adequate reason to believe it isn't true. Since we're just a subset of atheists, I would go with that as the rational skeptic position: it's an atheistic position but it's not the position of atheism, which only has a position on one thing.


.