A New Way of Looking at Atheism..

[Perhaps]

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

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

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

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.

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).

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.

I always enjoy reading arguments such as these. I appreciate the time you took to put into your argument, and I'll attempt to analyze it.

As has been stated many times, atheism is simply a statement of disbelief, but I will appreciate the fact that most atheists do support their disbelief with the use of tools such as science and logic.

To believe in something, in regards to ontological existence, without evidence is illogical, but it does not determine the epistemological value of the belief. The term, Modus ponens, comes to mind when I think about things such as this. The term translates from Latin to mean "the way that affirms by affirming" and is integral in the use of logic (the process of applying reason). All logic is based on knowledge which, of course, is subjective and very specifically temporal. An example of Modus ponens is as follows:

If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, John will go to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

This aspect of logic is used to both explain the existence of God, and to disprove the existence of God by means of evidence of absence. Most individuals understand that this is a leap of logic which is perpetually without ground, and thus they revert to evidence or science.

As was stated earlier, science is the study of all that exists. Genakus gave a very impressive discussion related to the material existence of objects, as well as their ontological existence via material objects. To say that science could not understand or verify the existence of something which exists - even if it is non-physical in nature - is to create a secondary definition of science. We can scientifically verify the ontological existence of things which exist in a non-material world (ie. thoughts, emotions, etc.), but where science runs into a wall is when it predicts things which have not been experienced.

Science has the ability to verify existence, but that does not mean that it knows everything which exists. To say so, is to commit Modus ponens in the worst case, or express human arrogance in the best case.

To simplify the above: One commits a logical error by using evidence of absence as 'proof' of non-existence. One also commits a logical error by stating that sciences determines the existence of everything. It is illogical to believe in something without evidence, which is why most atheists support their disbelief by the use of logic - stating that they prefer the side with the most evidence (a logical thing to do), but it is illogical for them to state that God does not exist, as they are making an illogical statement and asserting that all existence is known. Agnosticism is the logical standpoint at the end of the day.

Lastly, metaphysics really has nothing to do with the non-material world. It is a branch in philosophy which examines other sub branches such as ontology, necessity/probability, identity, modality, causation, time and space, material objects, and free will/determinism. Metaphysics is the base of physics, which is the study of the physical world. A more appropriate term for the study of the non-material world would probably be dualism with a concentration on the non-material.