Atheists in a nutshell

That's just why you don't hear about them.

Atheism is a refusal to believe in a god or gods. It does not mean you don't have religion as religion doesn't require a god, for instance Jainism is a religion compatible with Athiesm. JimJones was a self called atheist who started a religous cult based in humanism and beliefs the people could change reality with will power. So the Jonestown massacre had many contributing factors but was a religiously motivated act. Since so few atheists opently practice religion it is uncommon for their crimes to be atrubbutied to a religion. It's self evident that not having religion means you wouldn't be able to commit crimes in the name of religion. The soviet LMG was a militant atheist organization which carried out executions, violence, persecution, and forced relocation against believers in the name of athiesm as an example. So atheist are unlikely to commit "crimes of religion" but are capable of crimes against religion, or horrible crimes in general. The person commits the crime not the cause

It is true that most serial killers are Atheist but that is only a side effect. Atheism is the result of looking at the facts from an unbiased perspective - which both psychopaths and sociopaths do by their very nature. They aren't fooled by the emotional aspects that theists try to trap you in due to their inability to be.

Theism isn't the exclusive purveyor of ignorance. Nothing about atheism is unbiased or logical. Atheists simply do not believe in deities. They can be spiritual, religous, illogical and emotional. Everyone is biased because even if we agree on the facts being the same our life experiences give us a different perspective. The backbone of science states you can't prove anything is impossible, merely improbable. Agnostics follow this. They will believe in a deity if provided proof. That is scientific, logical. Atheists reject theism (it's in the name) and by virtue are biased against the ideas of theism. Listen to most serial killers reasoning and you will see that while often internally consistent to its own logic, it is illogical or insane to a sharp mind. Where there is a question there is the unknown. Even now many reject quantum science and in its infancy it was mocked as pseudo science because it flew in the face of established knowledge. Continues...

There is either arrogance or supernatural/divine power in claiming one knows for certain everything that exists in the universe. Look at what was held as fact 100, 50, 20 years ago and look what we know now. Someday people will look at us and laugh at our quaint ignorance. So I can't prove or disprove deities exist to you, it's beyond my abilities. What I can prove is that a sampling of atheists are no more logical, unbiased, or aware than a comparable sampling of non atheists.

Which is true simply because one random sample of average humans will be pretty much the same as another, no matter where the samples are taken from. So don't look at the average ones, look at the exceptional ones.

I never said average. I said comparable. Which makes sense considering it would be a little biased to compare Albert Einstein to a hipster barista, or Steven Hawking to the guy at Walmart that thinks dinosaurs are a secular conspiracy. If you take a sampling of exceptional religious types and compare them to an exceptional sampling of atheists you'll likely find pretty similar results as well. Some of histories greatest scientific and technical minds were religous or agnostic, while some were atheists. That said take Niel Degrasse Tyson. A man with much knowledge and an atheist. He has repeatedly shown himself capable of vast intellect yet still made controversial or outrightly glaring wrong statements. He is a man very well read and learned in his field, but often is shown to be lacking outside his discipline. There is no one authority on the subject, and paraphrasing Einstein: the question of god is too big for a yes or no answer.

Atheism in of itself isn't logical, however logical thought leads to atheism. Walmart isn't a road but the roads still leads to Walmart.

It seems you believe that unless you know everything then you know nothing. You seem to hold that unless you can prove there is no god then it exists, however that is simply not true. As for the first claim, I do not need to know everything to know certainty. I KNOW that a four sided triangle cannot exist without knowing everything. I also don't have to know everything to know that there are no unicorns or dragons as Earth mythology claims. Allah, Yahweh, and countless other gods CANNOT exist by their very nature in the same way a four sided triangle cannot exist. These are not reasons but they are excuses to try to get around the burden of proof.

I have tried to prove nothing except that where there is not an answer there is always possibility. This is the binary thinking I see so much of here. Something is black or white, no gray. You do not know Dragons do not or never existed, you know that you are very unlikely to encounter one. Just as animals thought to be extinct are rediscovered. We can't even account for that which we know where to find it. A four sided triangle could exist, just most likely not in three dimensional space. Once they said nothing smaller than an atom could exist too. You do not know nothing or know everything, you know only as much as you know, which will never be nothing. In science there isn't actually fact. EVERYTHING is a theory, even basic truths like "water is wet." Someday that may be wrong, but for today it works well enough and hasn't been proven wrong so we can run with it. When you deal in absolutes you do not deal in science or logic you deal in fortune telling and arrogance.

Theories are absolute, it's not like the general use of the term, a scientific theory is different, and facts do exists, theories are for how stuff works basically and facts are what can be measured. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very sleep deprived right now and we are going on a roadtrip, yaaay)

I apologize. I didn't proof read. It wasn't meant to say there aren't facts, it was meant to say there weren't unquestionable facts. For 300 years people said newton was wrong about light being particles, science is full of cases where people were held wrong only to much later be vindicated. That's how science works. A scientific theory isn't the same as when someone says "I have this theory about season 3!" You are right there. But in science a theory is not right or wrong, it's merely useful for predicting an outcome or not. The nature of science is to question the unkown. If you already have the answers why ask questions? If you don't ask questions, how will you learn? I hope you enjoy the road trip! Have fun, explore, have new and novel experiences.

A four sided triangle cannot exist because a triangle is a shape within a two dimensional world. A triangle cannot even exist in our third dimension. If it doesn't have three sides then it isn't a triangle. It's basic fucking numbers.

A cube is a three dimensional shape, when expressed in four dimensions it becomes a tesseract, or a 4 dimensional cube. When one expresses a cube on paper, a series of lines form the illusion of squares and other shapes that express what looks like a cube in three dimensional space. But those squares are not 2D in truth. In our 3D world there is depth to each line. For instance the graphite left by a pencil. A virtual line isn't real, and is closer to 2D in theory. Now, a true 4D object is near as we know not perceptible as such. Instead we see it as a representation made up of shapes in a dimension we can perceive. Pretend you were a 2D person living in a poster. As a ball is tossed towards you, you do not see a sphere, you see a circle getting larger. Since we cannot perceive 4D space we cannot say wether what we know as a triangle exists in 4D in some form. Basic numbers are great, they lay the way for higher math and physics.

Ah the squares are not two dimensional, yes, but it is the best way for a three dimensional being to express a two dimensional object. It is still a triangle, even if an unrealistic version as it is impossible to truly display a two dimensional object in a three dimensional universe. It is the concept it represents. Like Batman.

That's the point. We can only perceive so much. Anything beyond our perception is unknown to us. That which is unknown is neither impossible or a fact, it is unknown. If something can't be proven how can you believe it? But if it cannot be disproven how can one logically disbelieve it? As we covered there is only the hypothesis, and we can only view those by their usefulness and probable outcome to a given experiment. If a god(s) exist they could not be quantified as data. There is no control, no way to observe. Therefore there is no application for the information in a lab. The true scientific mind cannot discount any possibility amongst an infinite field of possibilities, it can only look at relevant probabilities. I stand by my assertion: there is nothing logical or intelligent about atheism. Agnosticism is a scientific outlook, atheism belongs to "spirituality" as a cynics fairytale to find a sense of identity, a religion of its own.

Just because it cannot be disproved doesn't mean it exists. You can't prove that tiny pink Flamingos are the omniscient gods of out universe but they are most certainly not real. You are simply using flawed arguments to defend a flawed position. Probabilities mean nothing in science due to observational studies outweighing theoretical ones.

Gnosticism describes knowledge. Theism defines belief. You can believe without knowing and you cannot believe while knowing (Theists are fond of this one). You can be an agnostic Christian. Knowing and belief are completely different thoughts that cannot be compared.

A control is good to have but not necessary. We cannot get likelihoods about the formation of our universe, however if a god truly existed then we wouldn't have such a flawed universe. The claim you are making points towards a deistic god which we have no evidence for. The lack of evidence is not evidence for something. If you want to prove a god exists then bring evidence.
More...

With a control we could see how the laws of a universe differ or perhaps gain insight into how they are formed but we don't even have evidence for the existence of other universes. By the very definition of universe we are ALL that exists. If it's not in our universe then it doesn't exist - because all that exists is in our universe. We see the wonder and beauty of the universe and see little mystery in how it was created. We know, with the closest certainty you can have, how stars were formed. We know how life was formed. We have proven that life needs no godly influence to exist. We can see the complexity of life evolve from the simplest of atoms.

We, as scientists, have an entire basis of reality to stand upon - that wasn't just pulled out of our someone's ass when we were desperate for answers. Gods are formed on the confusion and misunderstandings of humans - but we have evolved past such a point where we need not make up fairy tales to explain why the tides move in and out, why the Earth orbits the Sun, why the stars seem to fall at night. Science has given us everything, EVERYTHING, that we as humans need to survive, live, and thrive. Ancient (and some modern) religions seeks to tear all that down because they feel lonely and need a masterful sky god to stop them from jerking off at night.

Your argument is that we are unable to prove that there is no god. You seem to point towards a deistic god - which means that while a god created the universe, it doesn't care about it. To still a meme "A C- experiment sitting on an alien's shelf" - but that matters little. Nothing, not a single shred of evidence, points towards any supernatural being existing. Science doesn't care about not being able to prove something. Something that cannot be proven false, can never be proven true. Science will always fight Theism as they stand on complete opposite sides. Science vs Theism. Truth vs Belief. Fact vs Magic. Atoms vs Unicorns.

But let's put that aside. We cannot prove there is no god. But that doesn't mean it's Yahweh. Or Allah. In fact it is impossible for it to be either due to their own nature. An omni-benevolent god cannot be evil. This perfect Yahweh says that there is a single morality that all humans follow - which is obviously false. Allah made the Sun stop rotating around the Earth. The flaw in these gods are so blantant that the only reason they were ever believed is because they were never told. Only in the past few hundred years did the average person EVER have the capability to read their holy book. They had to take the word of their leader that it was a good book and truthful. Isn't it funny that the more intelligent people become the less likely they are to believe in any religious text? I'm not talking about getting your Doctorate smart. I mean being able to read smart. Do simple math. As soon as humans were able to learn the truth about their "holy" religion they began to leave.

You keep repeating me. I quite literally said that the fact something can exist does not mean it does exist, likewise the fact you cannot prove something exists does not prove it does not exist. You can prove something is IMPROBABLE not IMPOSSIBLE which are entirely different. You cannot disprove the existence of a "Ship eating Kraken" however one may exist. Our experience simply shows it is not a wise investment to operate under the assumption any ship is likely to encounter a Kraken. Also as I said and then you repeated, the search for knowledge is not a search for belief but the truth as we can best understand it. Atheists do not BELIEVE in god, it isn't that they can prove there is no god. It is itself a theism not a scientific discipline, it does not follow the methods of science nor does it stand up to scientific review. Like religion it has no bearing in science. We do not know how life is formed from nothing we have a theory. Synthetic biology has only recently produced....

what could be considered a basic life form. We may soon be able to have s very probable working theory to life. Not yet. You seem to feel religion is the anti science yet some of our greatest scientists weren't only religious but driven like religion. Like a child copying a parent or trying to figure out s magic trick, if s god exists science would be trying to understand the rules by which that gods works fit together and the methods used. The enemy you speak of is intentional and pig headed ignorance. It is when people say "nope, this is the universe this is how it works and I know." When people close themselves off to possibilities completely or decide to stop asking questions you have ignorance. I don't think my phone is magic. Apple made it, but I can look inside it and see how it works, I can reverse engineer the code and understand how they made it and how to change or recreate it.

God doesn't have to be proven not to exist - it must be proven TO exist first.

I'm going to eat my bacon sandwich now. I got fanfiction to read, netflix to watch, and code to make. I'll be back in a few hours so feel free to comment.

Apologies. I hope the sandwich was amazing and the rest went well. Sorry for the delay. I do want to be clear, I'm not arguing there is a god. As you say, I cannot bear the burden of proof even if I cared to waste my time doing so. What I am saying is that which we can set up an experiment for and which we can observe and repeat reliably may not be true, but is "good enough" to work until we can see it proved wrong. Before the atom could be proven it was just an idea. The universe being made of smaller things. The operation of the universe was consistent with the idea. Because they couldn't prove it was true did not mean atoms didn't exist, but it also didn't mean without proof one could say they did. You don't have to prove a thing exists for their to be the possibility it exists. There's a clear distinction. Not believing in a thing is not the same as not believing it is possible.

It was pretty nice. I went for a walk as well. The point is that although something may be true, it is impossible to know at the current time so we must assume that they do not as most ideas that go against, EVERYTHING, in science are pure fiction.

Out here on the west coast it's been hot but good walking weather. I've been working outside. I hope the weather is nice where you are. I agree that one must hold a healthy level of skepticism at all times in all things. All I'm saying is that while one can be skeptical, one need not close off any possibility so long as possibility exists. Atheism and theism are both belief based systems. One cannot justify atheism as a more intellectual or logical view as it is still based in faith. Faith is not quantifiable.

It wasn't too great. I like looking at the stars and moon but it was fairly misty/fogy so it was difficult to see any. Atheism is not more intellectual in of itself - it just means that said person doesn't believe in any god. It just happens that intellectuals are attracted to Atheism. Faith is based off what you'd like but don't know while science is based off of what everyone knows. I'm really getting tired of this. I got a can of Yoohoo and I've only got a few more hours of the night to binge watch Lucifer.

Yeah. I'm getting there too. Sorry it was misty. I don't think atheism is more intellectual in of itself, no more so than any other type of spiritualism. When it comes to a belief based system the level of intellectualism is based on the engagement of the practitioner. Using a belief system to ask questions and gain insight to oneself or the world isn't exclusive to atheism. Science isn't based off what everyone knows, it's based off what can be demonstrated repeatably under set conditions. Faith is as you say, based in what you like. If you like to believe in gods or if you don't. That's the original point. No one can prove there are gods, no one can prove there are not gods. Therefore either side can merely speculate and based upon their feelings in the issue and interpretations make a faith based decision to believe of not in absence of demonstaratble proof of their beliefs. I'm not saying I can invalidate atheism, but I'm saying atheism is no better than believing in a god.

The "intellectual" attraction is a non factor as it also cannot be proved. Most "intellectual" atheists are self proclaimed. There are and have been many notable and proven intellectual atheists, but counted among the religious and theistic are also some of histories great minds and creators. Neither belief system can claim an advantage in intellect.

Again that is incorrect. The intelligence/scientific nature of atheism comes from the fact that,logically, it must be assumed until definitively proven otherwise. Of course there are some who make it into a belief system, but at its core, that's not what it is.

What must be assumed until proven otherwise? Nothing must be assumed until proven otherwise. How does one prove something (except by accident) without positing the thought? It took 40 years to discover solid proof to validate the Higgs field. In those 40 years what they had was a blank space in a equation that suddenly made sense when you plugged in a concept. While technically the Higgs field didn't "exist" as a provable concept that didn't stop extrapolation based on its existence. For 40 years a key to particle physics was an unknown. While declaring it fact would have been premature simply because it was one possible explanation, it was also premature to declare it fiction, and in 40 years we may no longer think the Higgs field is a correct idea. You can say gods do not exist to you, but cannot say they do not exist for others. This is a singular truth not universal constant. It is not logical to assume because you can't see or touch it it doesn't exist.

Again, incorrect. In the case of the Higgs boson, it was the simplest explanation, and there was significant evidence implying it's existence to warrant classifying it as a "maybe" until definitive proof or a significant lack of it accompanied by a more reasonable explanation could be obtained. This is not the case with gods. God may "exist god some people" but in reality, it is just a fantasy, and scientifically, must be considered as such until circumstances like the aforementioned ones can bring it to a "maybe" or definitive proof makes it a fact.

Again missing the whole point. At what precise moment does something become acceptable to believe it MAY exist? At some point in time everything has no basis for fact. Great scientists have been destroyed by being beyond their times in ideas. Their only vindication being later when they were discovered to be right or on the right track. You are viewing a single moment in time and not proclaiming something likely doesn't exist, or saying that something isn't worth conducting yourself as it exists, or that it isn't even worthy of thought, you are specifically saying that you have thought about it and decided it cannot exist. It is a HUGE distinction. A child hears there are infinite possibilities and believes that means there is a universe made of candy. It is possible. What is the likelyhood of that, or of discovering that? I say I doubt it, but if you want to believe it that's fine and I cannot say it isn't possible. Great minds don't even agree if we exist, you can't prove you exist.

To be clear when I say you I do not mean you specifically. I mean you in general. You have not stated your theology nor I have. I just needed to meet character limits and you was the shortest way to convey the ideas.

"If you want to believe it that's fine." No. It is better to be scientific than not. That is how we move forwards, and if you have religion, it will likely get passed on to your offspring. If you think about gods, they really make no sense. I cannot imagine a scenario that would make gods the most likely explanation. However, should such a scenario arise, we would have to respond accordingly. Make it a "maybe" and search for definitive proof.

I think there is a misunderstanding. Firstly there is nothing scientific about looking at something and then saying "nope. Not possible." That is literally the opposite of progress. Secondly you go on to say "should such s scenario arise" which is my original point. Such a scenario is HIGHLY unlikely but could arise. Thus there is ambiguity and one cannot completely disregard possibility. Either you are not understanding my point or you are not understanding your own. It is better to be scientific, science never closes doors. It goes through the door that makes sense at that time and if it needs it later goes back and tries another. This is underpinned by the fundamental idea that you cannot say something is impossible. You can never be certain of any fact no matter how self evident or dear to you. As I said earlier, you literally cannot prove you are real and I cannot prove it to you. logic says it doesn't matter. What you perceive as real is reality to you.

Lol, I'm the one not understanding things. Let me repeat once again: it must be assumed that god does not exist until proven otherwise. Science never closes doors, that's the whole point. "Facts" are always open to refutation. However, you need a baseline, and the baseline must be "it does not exist until proven otherwise." Any other way would make no sense.

So then what you are saying is that gods may in fact exist?

Anything may exist, but must be assumed not to until proven otherwise.

I'll try this one more time. This is a common misunderstanding of science by most people. Science doesn't deal in proof. Proofs require 2 things that aren't in science- proof is binary (yes no) and final. Science deals in evidence. All things in science are an idea, theory or hypothesis. There is nothing that doesn't exist in science. There are no absolutes. Things neither are or are not, they are said to be likely or unlikely. If you want proof of god you need a mathematician not a scientist. Mathis internally consistent and probable, science is our understanding of the natural world and reflects its changing nature.

Where the hell are you getting that definition? Things do either exist or don't. However, since we can't prove something doesn't exist, we must assume it does not until proven otherwise. And yes, we can definitively prove that things exist. It's just important that we are careful how we define them.

Google will give you more, or if you have a half decent science textbook nearby that works too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_.22scientific_proof.22
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof%3famp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/can-science-prove-anything-2/amp/
http://blog.drwile.com/science-cant-prove-anything/
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402

If that's too much a tl:dr quote:
"In one of my science textbooks, I make the statement that science cannot prove anything.1 I am always surprised at how controversial such a matter-of-fact statement is to some people. Almost every year, at least one student or parent will contact me simply aghast that I would write something like that in a science textbook. After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?
Of course it hasn't. In fact it's impossible to prove anything..."
You cannot prove anything exists. How do you actually know we are having this conversation? Could this be a dream? A simulation? A hallucination? You don't know nor do I. The question is what exists to you. In your perception. How many crazy people see things that aren't there and think everyone else is crazy for not seeing it? How many people can't tell a dream is real until they wake up? Can't prove anything, even that any of this exists.

A fun concept sure, but one that falls apart with simple word definitions.

Please don't take this next post as a personal attack. At this point I am unsure if I am being trolled, or there's a lack of self awareness, or if it's pride or what talking. Technical fields use well defined and carefully chosen language to avoid ambiguity. I have provided links to where great scientific minds, influential thinkers, educators, professional groups, and the general population all agree on this fundamental fact. Your counter appears to either be that you can change reality through wordplay, or that they are all wrong and you are more qualified on the issue, in which case I would parrot your posts and ask for evidence. You've stated directly elsewhere and indirectly here you are unwilling or unable to examine these issues with objective bias or adherence to established scientific thought process. You may believe whatever you want, but passing off ones personal views as facts, or a fundamentalist attitude that ones philosophy is the only "true" way has historically....

brought violence, subjugation, and perpetuates ignorance while setting back progress. I cannot abide such fanaticism in the face of science. Perverting the quest for knowledge to pass off ones personal philosophy isn't new, it just changes faces. I'm glad to discuss differing views, or even to rectify miss information, but I'm not interested in arguing over fundamentals put in place by people much more qualified than myself. If you would like to turn this into a discussion of linguistics we have already bypassed science, touched math and logic, and can now talk language and theology if it suits you better.

it doesn't need to be for the purposes of this argument. Maybe everything is just an illusion in the larger, ultimate sense, however, within the context of our existance, they exist. As we define exist. I can look up, and I see the sun. I feel it's warmth, I see it's light. It exists to me. And to everyone else to. If I look up and see a giant frog, we'll, that exists only to mee. But to no one else, and thus, by my definition, it can be safely assumed that it does not exist in reality, only inside my head.

Who is everyone else? If a group of 200 mine workers all see a dragon in the mine, are dragons real? If they asked their coworkers if there was a dragon all would say they saw it. But what if it was a hallucination from gas? In fact what if it was only a single worker who hallucinated the other 199 guys telling them they saw it too? That's the entire point. Any confirmation you have is filtered through your mind. The mind is prone to bias, illusion, it even lies to itself. Did you know (current knowledge is) when you remember something you destroy that memory and are just remembering the last time you remembered it each time? That's part of why people's memories of things often aren't true. How many people swear they remember the "Berenstein Bears" or that your eyes don't actually see much of what you "see" but use life experience to create a picture of what tour mind thinks should be there?

If the entire world existed in your head you would have no way to know because you don't have external confirmation. Say you are the last person on earth, how do you know what is real then? If you can't see or touch something but you are told by a leading physicist it exists, you are incapable of the math or research to understand or independently replicate it, how do you know it's real? What you say underpins arguments such as the moon landing is fake or vaccines are a hoax, or the earth is flat. Ask anyone and the majority have never seen the curvature of the earth first hand. Imperical evidence suggests the earth is largely flat. At altitudes over 40,000 feet (where few civilians have been) you can see the earth is curved. You are arguing against a majority of studied minds here based in your own perceptions, using the argument that reality can be confirmed through a majority perception. There's a giant flaw here. Like I said, I can provide more links if you feel like a long read.

If I were the last person on earth I would obviously become forced to define real differently. The "absolute truth" would become unverifiable, I could only go off what I was mentally processing. If I saw a dragon, I'd either need to do something to cast doubt on it, say, realizing I'd ingested a hallucinogen, to downgrade it to a maybe, or be forced to accept it as reality.

My reality would be different from the absolute, most likely, but as the only human left, it wouldn't really matter.

Your reality is already different from absolute. Think of all the people who have ever disagreed with you. Either they are all seeing reality wrong, or each of you is is seeing a non true interpretation of reality as filtered by your perceptions and biases. So if it doesn't matter if you are the last person on earth, why would it matter if you were dillusional and not the last person on earth?

Well, all that can be verified is direct sensory perception, as that has minimum variance. What you said earlier is correct, however I still stand by this as a valid interpretation. Which is: we accept something as definitively proven, though always being prepared to admit that we were wrong.

It's ones choice how one accepts something. I operate under the assumption that certain things are more probable than others, not accounting for the improbable is not a sound strategy when one has the luxury to do so. To accept something as proven may be functionally fine as far as not effecting the obvious outcome of daily life, however where we started was the idea that was somehow scientific. It may be what most people or many do but it is not scientific. Science doesn't accept as proven and admit wrong. Science accepts as seemingly most likely at a given moment based on available information.

Which is approximated as proof. We accept it as such, even though it is not technically correct.

"We" being yourself and the like minded perhaps. As I said, the scientifically minded person doesn't take approximate proof, they confirm if an idea is useful or not. A judge doesn't (or isn't supposed to) take the fact you were arrested as proof of a crime or approximate proof of evidence, they consider you innocent until a body of evidence suggests the probability of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, you are declared likely guilty but given appeals chances in case of new evidence or oversight. In daily life on small matters one can make personal assumptions of course with little functional repercussions. However when one based a world view on, or puts forth an opinion as facts based on biased assumption that is not science or fact. It's an opinion without verifiable or auditable process. It's subjective belief and doesn't approach fact. All of science is not "technically correct." It is merely seen useful within a set of conditions. The process is what gives it legs, not the idea.

The idea is irrelevant. The fact it can be demonstrated to adhere to the process shows it withstands scrutiny and that others can reproduce your results objectively without relying on personal experience or bias, or in imperical evidence which can be misleading or wrong. As such one cannot use science to accept or deny existence of a god or gods, but one can consider the problem from a scientific perspective. From the scientific perspective the possibility must exist, one then applies personal opinion to available evidence to make an individual belief in wether they do or do not exist. One then has an opinion which again, scientifically one cannot pass an opinion off as fact, merely their personal opinion. Sciences involvement with god objectively ends at the point science confirms there could be such a thing, after that it is all just opinion.

I feel like we're just talking in circles now.

We have been for awhile. I do not and have not had any intent of changing your world view or beliefs system. My only hope was that you would recognize (supported by accredited sources) that your definitions of proof and scientific method were flawed. That passing off opinion as fact doesn't make it so. The oft encountered stance is that a personal bias towards not believing in gods is more intelligent or logical than doing so. Science cannot be used to validate or invalidate such beliefs. They are both simply beliefs, equally possible. So long as people are respectful of others beliefs and do not try to raise themselves to self proclaimed superiority by virtue of their beliefs, we can all coexist and simply disagree. We may find out when we die, or not. But no one can "prove" either view correct and they cannot be put through scientific method so are just opinions without validation beyond our own bias.

It's just another interpretation. Like everything else.

However, your god argument is incorrect. It still must be assumed that x does not exist until proved/reasonably demonstrated otherwise.

You don't assume it doesn't exist. You assume it may or may not exist. If I assume something doesn't exist why would I waste time on it? Why would look at something which I thought didnt exist? You don't just wait around for the universe to explain itself. Sometimes "happy accidents" make science happen, but it's usually an active perspiration. So if you're a scientist and you don't think unicorns exist, or you don't think Gravity exists, why would you spend any time studying gravity or unicorns? You'd move on. At some point everything was unknown. First you think it may exist- this is called a hypothesis. Then you refine that idea into a testable and demonstartable theory. If you can confirm the hypothesis your theory is still just a theory. But it is a theory which has been validated. It can be reproduced and under a set of circumstances can be used. It still does not exist nor does it not exist. It's simply an observation on how things appear to work. Nothing more.