Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?

This is reversal of the burden of proof. Primary fact of existence is first person experience. The mental is what undeniable defines existence. "I think therefore I am" is deductive proof. There is no deductive proof for the physical model of the world, only indirect empirical proof.

There's no evidence that it's an exception and isn't physically part of this physical universe like everything else I know of it. For such an anomaly I need evidence.

This is a totally unacceptable way of reasoning. You are asserting that the material worldview can explain first person experience. This claim means you have solved the mind-body problem. You do not seem to understand what your claim really is. Fro is totally right to question it. You cannot show me here that you understand anything of such a simple thing as what I perceive as red. Your claim is however that it is produced by the material world. This claim is unsubstantiated for first person experience and this discrepency is acknowledged by contemporary science. You should require the same standard of evidence for such claims that you require from others.

Whether it's physically detectable or not - there's no evidence that it is an exception to the physical universe and isn't part of it...in it. No evidence that it's 'on top' as you say. If it can't be detected physically I shall assume it's physical, just an undetected physical part of the physical universe, i.e. - it's nothing specially distinct from the rest of, physical, matter. Why would it be? How is it?

You claim the relation between the material world and first person experience, you provide the evidence. All empirical evidence is inductive evidence, not logical proof. IOW, physicalism is a model that tries to explain reality, it hasn't succeded in explaining first person experience yet. Read up on the mind-body problem. Your reasoning is a skyhook, you assert that there is a material explanation and ask your opponent to show you how it can be otherwise. Well, his is not the claim that the material view explains first person experience.

You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence,

No, the default is that it's part of the physical universe...because everything else is and you have provided zero evidence to make it an exception.

and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.

No, not must. It's just - why make it an exception?

That first person experience would be an exception to materialism is not proof for materialism. It can in fact be a vaild reason to disprove the claim.

You keep on circling in this reasoning that first asserts that the material world is all there is and from that assertion concludes that there can be no other existence, notwithstanding the gap between first person experience and the physicalism you propose. When you are really critical in your thinking you would be alarmed by this inconsistency. Personally I think critical thinkers should be keen on not being drawn into claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence. Science is not making this claim at the moment. It is currently researching physicalistic models for explanation of THIRD person experience.