I agree that atheism is not inconsistent with the scientific method, but I don't see how the simple null hypothesis of atheism makes any such demands regarding evidence and science. There seems to be relative trends and tendencies, but no demands at all.

@TheMiddleWay I suppose if null worked that way, you could rationalize those points.

@TheMiddleWay I stand corrected...

Atheist has certain nothing except that they are not convinced there's a God or gods. The simple question is do you believe in a God or gods, if your answer is anything but yes, I have bad news for my diagnostic friends you are atheist. The term agnostic means without knowledge. The term atheist means I'm not convinced there is a God show me evidence and I will happily worship Him until then if you can't show it you don't know it what other fun question for Christians and I suppose that Jews as well if we are made in God's image then why are we not invisible.

@Lazarusstewart That's my point. You and I assume that atheism is not certain; the scientist in the OP argues that it is.

He's taking the term literally.

He's assuming that the Atheist IS certain....and thus isn't being scientific...which is a reasonable argument.

Again...I refer you to this chart; Where do you fit in? I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

I think professor Gleiser is only referring to "Gnostic Atheists"....those "convinced" or "Certain" there is no god. He's saying they're not scientific...they have no absolute proof that god doesn't exist...so they can't be scientific. It's a valid argument.

@TheMiddleWay What if your parents are lying? And can you tell me again about that scientific experiment? How exactly do you prove that it doesn't exist? You think waiting in the night is enough?

Funny that you say that "I don't believe" is the agnostic position when the guy in the article said that was the atheistic position that he was against. I thought you and the guy think exactly alike?

@TheMiddleWay ok then. Bigfoot.

@Dietl exactly! I never told my kids I was the tooth fairy. And I'll never tell them I was. So as far as they're concerned, they can't be anything but agnostic concerning the tooth fairy.

@TheMiddleWay Now do the invisible, undetectable dragon living in my garage.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence but the burden of proof DOES NOT SHIFT. If a theist (or invisible dragon believer) makes a claim, they can either provide convincing evidence (or ANY evidence, really) else I can safely assume that they are quite bonkers and disbelieve their claim with near certainty...

@TheMiddleWay Those experiments don't prove anything. You know that, right? You are a scientist. You should know that. Is it possible that the tooth fairy didn't come because she had her day off and when you told your parents she happened to work again? Of course that it possible.

But let's say you proved somehow that your parents put the money under your pillow. Easy with a camera, whatever. Have you proved that in every instance your parents did this? Or that they did this in the past? What about other parents and children? Did you also prove that the fairy didn't come to them? Maybe she only visits children who were born at Christmas? There are so many possibilities. Someone who truly believes in the tooth fairy ALWAYS has a way out. Now here is the question. How did you not consider this? You write like you have not the slightest idea about the scientific method. How is that possible when you claim to be a scientist?

@TheMiddleWay that was way before cameras on phones.

@TheMiddleWay Because I feel it in my heart... Same as believers claim it is a "god".

@TheMiddleWay "disbelief in their claim doesn't make the opposite claim true"

Atheism makes no claim, atheism does not believe the claim that IS made.

@TheMiddleWay The Agnostic "creed" doesn't say a thing about belief. Yours might.......

@TheMiddleWay If I tell you that I can cure cancer with my magic but offer NO evidence, will you believe me? IF not you have made the claim that I cannot cure cancer with my magics. IT's magic, and only works a small percentage of the time, usually only on those who BELIEVE that they will be cured. Go on, then, prove YOUR CLAIM. I'll wait... eyeroll emoji

@TheMiddleWay "I need more than your "feelings" to speak of science..."

Yeah, duh? Methinks you've missed the point. Probably intentionally... again.

@TheMiddleWay So have you done all those experiments? Have you gathered any data concerning the existence of the tooth fairy? If not, shouldn't you be agnostic about it and likewise about every other mythical existence claim?

@TheMiddleWay "You'd have to prove that magic exists first.
If you do, I might.
If you don't, then there is no basis for your claim."

So, you expect me to keep the burden of proof but those who claim that "gods" exist get a pass on shifting the burden of proof onto atheists?

Do you not see the fault in your "logic" here, bub?

@TheMiddleWay Sorry, but can you give me a scientific study that is not done by a nine year old? I mean, are you joking? You don't take this point serious, right? I wonder why.

@TheMiddleWay So you have nothing to disprove the tooth fairy. You just dismiss it. You have no evidence except that you heard somewhere that she didn't do her magic at some particular moment, which of course is not anywhere near enough. The difference with your stone experiment is that there a falsifiable claim is made.

@TheMiddleWay Yes to disprove the kinetic equation all you need is to show that one object doesn't follow it. That is a way to falsify it. But when you show in one case that the parents exchanged a tooth nothing is falsified. She could still exist elsewhere while the KE would then be considered false and we would have to find a new law that describes motion. There is a tooth fairy claim that does get falsified and maybe that is your mistake. If you say the tooth fairy always exchanges teeth for money everywhere it is put under a pillow. But that is more than just the existence claim. The tooth fairy I am talking about is a real being that can't be at more than one place at the same time. It obeys the known laws of the universe and therefore can only exchange some teeth. Of course some parents lie because they don't think she exist so they take matters in their own hands. But sometimes somewhere a tooth is exchanged by the tooth fairy. That's the tooth fairy existence claim you don't take serious where you try to get a way with an easily disprovable strawman of a fairy that makes it so easy to get detected even though her ability to do her job depends on not getting found.

@TheMiddleWay I did not modify the definition at all. It is you who implied that she ALWAYS exchanges ALL the teeth. Otherwise your "experiments" don't work at all to disprove the tooth fairy.
It is so frustrating that you claim to be a scientist and can't tell the difference between a falsifiable and an unfalsifiable claim. A scientific law that describes motion is falsifiable. That mean that there is ONE experiment that could disprove it. ONE instance of an object's motion not conforming to the law (given that you rule out any other factors that might skew the outcome) disproves the law entirely. One experiment where it turns out that the parents exchange the tooth does only disprove a fairy that supposedly exchanges ALL teeth ALL the time. If you can't consede that point you are not worth continueing talking to. You one chance left. Either you consede that obvious point or we are done here.