For the many years I have been a member of this forum most posters have assumed that 'reality' is a realm independent of the obsevational needs of humans. Even if it were meaningful as such, it would inaccessible since all we call 'data' are processed by our human perceptual systems.
We have different kinds of "reality".
Your dreams are real, your imaginations do exist in your brain, and by such images and voices are real inside your brain.
We have the new "virtual reality".
We have also the "physical reality" which is the base of science when you talk about physics, biology, etc.
Physical reality is what it can be tested, observed with the senses. The observation may be direct or indirect observation, but it is perceived by the senses.
Science is not about mixtures like imaginations and reality. In science, what is it objective is what it counts, subjective is matter of other branches of knowledge.
Science, however, can study the action or reaction of humans or living species in front of subjective, understanding that what is observed and tested is the individual, not so the subjective.
At the bottom of all human knowledge, you lack of senses, you lack of capability to perceive, then you have no knowledge, even if knowledge is in your genes by inheritance or whatever, without the senses you are nothing.
For this reason, science is based 100% in what sensation and perception allow us to learn.
Neologist is quite correct in questioning the concept of 'proof' as applied to theist beliefs by pointing out that proof depends on the acceptance of axioms.
The 'shortest distance' axiom only becomes problematic where 'curvature of space' gets involved in which 'straight lines' have no currency, and where 'shortest' becomes related to 'space-time' rather than merely to space. This illustrates that the meaning of an axiom is embedded in the context of its usage.
And this is your problem.
Einstein wasn't a genius but a poor retarded man.
There is not such a thing as "space time" because time doesn't exist physically.
So, there is no curvature of space time.
End of that fantasy.
The shortest distance between 2 points in physical reality is a straight line.
Perhaps Neologist is trying to demonstrate that 'atheism' based on 'lack of proof of God' is untenable. If so, I who call myself 'an atheist' totally agree with that. My atheism is based on the lack of psychological need for a 'God' concept and the historical evidence that theism is pernicious at the social level.
You are giving a personal opinion of yours,but such is not the opinion of other atheists.
A man who stands with the rules of science can deny the existence of a god by lack of physical evidence of such an existence.
On the other hand, questions like, who wrote all that information storage in the cells, claims for a intellectual mind capable to do that task. However, it won't pass of becoming a hypothesis only.
Many people just come from Missouri, and say "you'll have to show me" and if you don't, then they won't believe in a god.
If you look closely to the biblical narration, the existence of a god has been accepted mostly by spreading the words. It is noticeable in the bible that faith is obtained essentially by "listening", in other words, somebody convinces you that god indeed does exist.
But, evidence? None.
Miracles are not evidence that a god exists.
Then, the existence of a God is accepted as a belief, not as a "proof" but as a belief.