dogmatic claims it itself cannot even support (your god isn't real we haven't observed it yet--would sound petty and absurd were the same argument made to count

dogmatic claims it itself cannot even support (your god isn't real we haven't observed it yet--would sound petty and absurd were the same argument made to counter theorized atomic particles). The difference is that god is supposed to be observable, and isn't. You can look at religious texts and teachings and say "doing this should show that effect", and see that it doesn't. For theorized particles, they come with "this is how to observe it, we just aren't able to do the experiment yet". And then when research technology reaches the point where we can, someone goes and does the experiment. And at that point, a lack of results absolutely is taken as evidence that whatever particle doesn't actually exist as predicted.