I will agree. It's typically not smart to argue with leading scientists about the art of science. But.... It is generally quite easy to prove something if it exists. It is generally impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. But, it's awefully nice to have a "working theory" that works with the evidence we DO have.

Again, I agree that Science "proper" is driven by the scientific method... but, I might contend that experiments are created after a theorist has brought seemingly disparate ideas together to create a new concept...a concept which begs experimentation to prove. When Einstein theorized that light/photons are subject to gravity, it took a number of years for the scientific community to be able to prove it via observation (i.e. experimentation). During that time, I doubt that Einstein had any question as to the voracity of his claims, while other scientists scrambled like mad to say he was wrong. So... as an atheist, I don't bristle if someone says it's not the most un-biased of scientific mindsets...but I do believe we have been performing scientific experiments into this concept for long enough (seances, spoon bending, predestination, whatever), and I am, at this point, sufficiently convinced that the experiments we HAVE done are conclusive enough for me. I reiterate: It is generally quite easy to prove something if it exists. It is generally impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. So, I'm ok with not adhering super strictly to the scientific method. Just put me in the camp of Einstein...a theorist.

I don't believe in god; or I don't believe there's a god are not final statements. It's a challenge. Show me proof. To state categorically that there is no god would be a final statement.

Atheist means without god(s). I am an atheist first because I don't believe in god, presented with compelling and convincing evidence that there is, I would change my mind.

Secondly I am an atheist because I choose to live without gods. Whether bibledog is real or not doesn't matter to me. It's a horrible monster that I would not worship.

In summary, Marcelo is full of shit. He uses a straw man argument which isn't scientic.

I think he is standing logic on its head. Is he really saying that we should believe because we have no evidence that god doesn’t exist, therefore we should believe in god until the evidence disproves it? Yes, we can agree that lack of evidence doesn’t mean that it is evidence of absence, but surely we could use that argument for holding a belief in any fiction, remembering, of course, that it is impossible to prove a negative. It’s very troubling that such an apparently eminent scientist should be propounding this nonsense.

If you havent noticed, some scientists are completely clueless.