
Consider special relativity.  It hasn't be proved, nor has it been
disproved.  No one has a proof one way or the other, but many people
are interested in it!
 
I've satisfied myself that nothing could indicate absolutely the
existence of God one way or the other.  The two possibilities
are supernaturalism and naturalism.  Of course no set of circumstances can
be inconsistent with supernaturalism, but similarly, no set of circumstances
can be inconsistent with naturalism.  In naturalism, any phenomenon that
could be described as God is considered part of the natural world, to
be studied as any other natural phenomenon (gravity, for instance).  
For example, if a loud ``godlike'' voice vociferously announced, ``I
am God, I exist, and I will prove it by reversing the force of gravity,''
and if then gravity did indeed reverse, a naturalist (probably a scientist)
would say, ``Boy, we sure didn't understand gravity as well as we
thought we did, and that loud voice is something new.  Perhaps we
didn't understand thunder as well as we thought we did either.''


I'm sure glad you don't know where I live, since you don't seem
to realize it is impossible for you to distinguish between voices
in your head, and God's voice.


You seem to have missed my point.  Even if Jim Jones and David Koresh
were not religious people, my point remains that faith and dogma
are dangerous, and religion encourages them.  Jim Jones and David Koresh
also encouraged them.  My point does not rely on Jim Jones and David
Koresh being religious.