Since I possess no scientific credentials and have not set up camp in science's land-o-facts, I am not required to provide observable testable evidence. I need not pretend to preserve acclaimed scientific facts, nor do I worry about losing face with my colleagues. As a non-subscriber, I have the freedom to stray beyond "official" scientific beliefs in my search for truth.<quoted text>
Okay, so you made a bunch of assertions, where is the evidence that suggests any of this is at all reality?
Atheists on the other hand, as subscribers to science and dwellers in the land-o-facts, must provide what science serves and requires - and that is, proof. Yet how reliable is the science loving atheist's proof? While they can crank out extraordinary statements like funny money, they cannot substantiate these claims with any authority when science's testable observable "evidence" keeps changing. Science has compromised itself by overstructuring and overburdening its repertoire of affirmations. It has stifled itself with an overproduction of "temporary truths" that in the sciences spring up like weeds - tomorrow to be trampled underfoot, barely living through a season before being replaced with a new batch of weeds, which in turn meets the same fate - falling by the wayside.
To complicate matters, each specific field of scientific inquiry in order to maintain its identity as biology, or physics, or psychology, accumulates its own body of temporary truths, or factoids to which it can become slavishly devoted (paradigms). These factoids are usually isolated - taken out of context to some extent and considered only as they relate to a certain discipline, not as they connect with other fields of study even when one set of factoids contradicts another set of factoids. This obfuscation and unreliability is the reason seekers see science as an undependable source of truth, and fewer young people choose science as a career.