And that's what people argued about the atom with no contrary proof. Then they proved it. It is a good example.
You said they argued about it with no proof on either side and now you claim they "proved" it. Which is it? Also, do you understand what evidence is and how proof works? It doesn't appear that you do.
I never suggested anything about the nature of "something".
Well, yes you are, because you then say "That's completely overblown by organized religions to make you dependent on them." If you say that their claims are wrong, you are absolutely taking a position on the nature of the thing they (and you) are making claims about.
If you would like - prove to me that "something" does not exist.
What something are you asking about?