5 of 58

Write now Article Tools

I don't agree with Kimberley Stanley's initial point; the fact that technically, you can't prove it either way isn't relevant to this argument. She should be looking for the positivist/phenomenalist debate on this site (which, ironically, I'm not sure exists). Richard Dawkins, for instance, is an atheist icon; he doesn't believe you can prove the non-existence of God 100 percent. Clearly phenomenalism doesn't hinder his atheism.

Where atheism is wrong is in the way it treats the concept of God. Atheists tend to look at God as one steady concept - for instance, the omni-God of omnipresence, omnipotence etc - and ignore or set aside divine revelation. This is different to the way believers tend to think - they have a different core concept of God, and the aspects of God that they consider most important are different. For instance, a believer works from his of her divine revelation onwards.

Where this should impact an atheist's view the most is in terms of the design argument. The question of the origins of our universe has never been answered satisfactorily by atheists - allusion to 'evolution' is constantly used as a defence of the atheist's position, but this only serves to mask the fact that the overwhelming (scientific, I might add) evidence points to a universe which was at the very least fine-tuned by a creator.

The atheist might attempt to escape this by looking at the problem of suffering, making the statement 'the concept of God is incompatible with the existence of suffering'. However, (and this is where we see the true weakness of atheism) while the believer is content to say that maybe the concept we have needs tuning a little, the atheist uses this to dismiss the notion entirely. Needless to say, it is the former approach which is the most scientific.

Learn more about this author, Flourfingers.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Why Atheism is wrong?
We want to hear your view. Write now!