Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

I think it's not that easy. If there is a phenomenon that seems supernatural, i.e. defy known laws of physic, I think most scientist will first say that either the data is probably flaw or there probably are some hidden variables that we don't know. Even if those 2 possibilities are shown to be wrong, most scientist will say that the known laws of physic is probably wrong and they will develop a new theory that will bring the seemingly-supernatural phenomenon back to natural phenomenon.

I think the reason for this is that over the course of human history, supernatural claims have fallen into one of two categories. There are those claims that cannot be tested or verified, usually the claims of a person or group of an event that occurred once, or never seems to occur when there are opportunities to record or test it. Then there are claims that can be tested or verified, and invariably there turns out to be a logical and/or natural explanation for what happened.

After that happens enough times, I think it's understandable if any seemingly inexplicable phenomenon is approached with the expectation that the underlying cause will be natural, or impossible to verify. There are large numbers of people who will come running with prayer beads in hand when water vapor forms a pattern that looks like the virgin Mary on someone's window. Science can't verify that it isn't a message from god.

You response to my first post. The topic of this thread is actually "What would it take to prove you wrong". It seems (some, not all) atheist say that it's clear and easy to them what evidence of God existence should be like. For instance, just show us a supernatural phenomenon that can defy current known laws of physics. The purpose of my post is to show that it's not that easy. Do you agree that it's easy? If you do, could you please tell us just one phenomenon that, if observed and valid, will prove the existence of God? Or you agree that it's not that easy?

Although I wasn't born a theist, I was born in a theistic environment. The people in my environment can tolerate difference in theism (e.g. difference in belief in God as long as it does not disturb other people) but cannot tolerate atheism. Yes, I agree that this is a wrong view. But this is the reality in my environment.

This seems like a practical approach to a potentially difficult situation. It seems as if you are saying that you have decided to convince yourself that god exists, in order to avoid conflict in your social environment. But you also accept that you don't know if god exists.

My post related to this is actually started with "let's start with something simple" (or something like that, I don't quite remember). It means that this is not the only reason.
There are other reasons. One of them is being a *good* theist, I have more motivation to do good. Note that I'm not saying in any way that atheist can't do good. I'm saying that being a good theist, I will have more motivation. Of course there is also a *bad* theist who have more motivation to do bad. If there is only 2 choices: become a bad theist or atheist, then I will certainly choose to be an atheist. But this is not the case.
Also being a theist, I will have more influence (compare to atheist) to the bad or irrational theist to become a good & rational theist.

If, over time, your social environment learns to accommodate the atheist viewpoint, would you express your view that you are an atheist and abandon your belief in god?

Depend, is there any reason to become an atheist?
I'm sorry, I don't embrace the default disbelief position, i.e. that you should disbelief on something if there's no evidence either way.
Without any reason for that view, to me that's a dogmatic position. I won't embrace it unless someone can give me a valid reason for that.