Why are the religious so sensitive?

[Pete]

I guess I wasn't all that clear on making my point. I was trying to say that all these arguements presented above cannot be analyzed further unless there is an agreement on what are considered to be valid sources of knowledge. After all this is exactly where theists and atheists disagree in the first place.

Again, you seem to be connecting two completely unrelated states of "belief"!

I disagree of course.

If tachyons exist at all then they will probably eventually be proved.

Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume that they must interact with matter and if not then they wouldn't be detectable. There are particles like that in modern physics, i.e. particles which are assumed to exist but it is accepted that they are unobservable. They're called virtual particles.

On the other hand its concievable that God will make an appearance someday and provide atheists with all the evidence for His existance that they've been asking for all this time. Its been said that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever proven that its impossible to prove that he does exist.

However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon says "no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found" so they may well just be the product of a formula derived from a mistaken theory.

The only reason the idea of tachyons was even raised by physicists was because someone showed that no physical laws would be broken if they were found to exist. However there is no theory which predicts their existance. The reason I used them as an analogy is because, as the atheists believe about God, there is no proof that they exist and no reason to assume that they do either. The concept of tachyons has appeared in a well respected, pier reviewed physics journal. Do you know of a professional zoology journal in which unicorns are seriously discussed? Is there a difference between talking about unicorns vs. tachyons?