Mathematics is the primary language of Science, but we certainly proves things (usually relationships) in science.

Obvious examples are in Newtonian Physics – we express the relationship in mathematical terms (eg F = mA, v = At + V0, s = At^2 + V0t + S0), we then create experiments to test / prove / validate these relationships.

In the even that we otice something inconsistent, a new theory (or a modification of the old one) is then required, one that not only explains the new evidence, but also continues to explains the old evidence. (Sticking with our previous example, we note that at high Velocities, ie Velocities approaching the speed of light, Newton’s equations break drown, and hence Einstein’s theory of Relativitistic Physics was developed that catered for this anomaly, while not being contradictory to the basic Newtonian framework)

Summary: Physics, Biology, Chemistry and any other hard sciences I’ve neglected certainly do prove things, and the language of those proofs is mathematics.

In answer to you Atheist definition (btw, Atheist is a poor term for us – I think “Lunatic” is a better term for religious people than “Theist”, but I use their own term and not a perjorative. Same applies here – “Atheist” implies we’re missing something, being literally “without a god” – stick with “Humanist” or “rationalist” if you need a term) we do not Believe that there is no god – we have seen the hypothesis, and like the pixie fairies of bubblegum forest we have rejected the hypothesis. To be defined by one of the millions of meaningless hypotheses I’ve rejected seems absurd to ms. (Do you believe in Santa Clause? If not, are you an “Asantaist”? How about an “ADentoFaeist” if you’ve rejected the Tooth Fairy myth?. A far better definition of a Rationalist is that we accept what can be shown to be true, and take on faith that which is proven using a methodology we trust. (Yes, there is sadly some element of faith involved – most of us do not understand quantum physics for example, but we trust the scientific principle that has developed it and the Engineers that have applied it to semiconductor theory, powering pretty much every piece of electronics that you use on a daily basis)

-Ed.

“An Atheist is someone who does not believe that a god or gods exists, i.e. God is not real and does not exist.”

Not believing in something is different from the claim that that thing does not exist. So to say “I do not believe in god” is not also to say “god does not exist”. I don’t believe in Russell’s teapot, but I cannot say that it doesnt exist.

“An Agnostic is someone who thinks that God cannot be proven or that we cannot know God, i.e. there is no evidence for God.”

To say that one “cannot” prove (ie: there is no evidence that we could have access to which would have a bearing on the matter) that god exists is different from saying that there is no evidence. To say that something is not subject to standards of proof, evidence, or even truth, is to adopt a kind of mysterianism; or mysticism in the case of religion, not agnosticism.
The agnostic, technically, is one who says “there is no evidence for god, therefore no reason for me to believe in (a) god, therefore I do not believe in god”

If by “cannot prove” you mean “cannot prove with available evidence” then maybe. But then, of course, science isn’t really in the business of “proving” anything (if that’s the kind of model you’re drawing on). You prove things in mathematics, not science.

I pondered whether or not I should comment on this article, but decided to put forth a small piece of my opinion seeing as you seem to be recieving some flack for it.

I think its absolutely great that you are questioning the “status quo” and that everyone should do so, not just once, but continously throughout their life. This is how we learn and evolve.

As for myself, I can honestly say you cannot “box” me in a religion or faith, yet I do “feel” there is something more to life than just birth and death. I like to call this “God /(s)” for the mere convenience, but do not believe it is the end and beginning of what was or is to come, but a comfort (or anger outlet) when confronted with seemingly “unsolvable” issues.

In the end the “right” answer will only be discovered when people do start asking questions, so well done on having the guts to do so!

Keep the great articles coming, I do enjoy having my views challenged by them!

Christ’s teachings are clear – love for friends and enemies, and forgiveness for all. It’s too bad more Christians don’t practice what he taught. In my experience, it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.

You seem to be a religionist… someone who believes anything for the sake of belief, I assume because it comforts you in some way. As an Atheist I have no need or reason to believe in something because there’s pressure to do so, instead I gain knowledge through testing, logic and evidence. The books you’ve mentioned are anything but good guides for humanity, the Bible and the Kur’an are a jumble of contradictory myths that preach love and peace and hatred and war all in the same breath. Just because I only adhere to the love part doesn’t make the book valid as the source of all truth. There have been many great guides throughout history that have taught us to think rationally not religiously, go read some of their books – I suggest Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” as a good place to start. When people give testimony of great things they’re giving testimony to the wonders of the natural world and, needing a reason, invent God. Douglas Adams said, “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”