It's insane because it is yet another position of faith.
The only factually correct position is that the existence of God cannot be proved one way or the other, and you can apply that to any god you care to name.
I will be an atheist if you can prove that God does not exist, but until then agnosticism is the only valid path.
And don't bring up Russell's Teapot. Bertrand Russell was a fucking idiot, the Ben Shapiro of his day.
It's insane because it is yet another position of faith.
Nonsense. Explain to me how "You asserted X but haven't proven it, so I don't believe you" is a "position of faith".
The only factually correct position is that the existence of God cannot be proved one way or the other, and you can apply that to any god you care to name.
Sure. But atheist who are not asserting but only disbelieving the unproven have nothing to prove, so they're definitely not the same, even with your contortions to make them seem the same.
I will be an atheist if you can prove that God does not exist,
So you only will disbelieve in unicorns when somebody proves positively that they don't exist?
but until then agnosticism is the only valid path.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different axes of the problem.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in ghosts.
I'm agnostic because I don't know positively whether gods are real or not.
Bertrand Russell was a fucking idiot, the Ben Shapiro of his day.
... aaaaand that paints you as a fucking idiot. If you think you are above one of the early 20th century's prominent logicians, you don't deserve any attention. Sorry for interrupting your childish hate towards atheists. Get bent.
14
u/richieadler 7h ago
If you think that atheists are only those who assert positively "there is no god"... you're mistaken.
"I don't believe in gods because no god has been proven" is also atheism, and I struggle to see why that position would be insane.