by The Comrade » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:18 pm
well, he is dismissing it. the whole purpose of russell's teapot is that there is a burden of proof on those making unscientific claims. specifically with this thread, you can't say "well no one has proven there ISN'T a god" because the burden of proof isn't on someone to prove a negative, it's up to the one making the same. so it's entirely illogical to say agnosticism is the most logical conclusion because god has not been disproven.