reasoning logic wrote:
You may be right and there may be no god and I doubt that there is, but why make a absolute for or against something that can not be proven?
I may be wrong, but me being wrong can also mean that there are many, in fact an infinite number of gods. There aren't any agnostics for flying spaghetti monsters. Agnostic philosophy is always pick and choose. For that matter, every single scientific theory I believe could be false, but them being false would not make a single supernatural theory true. For them to be true, they would still need to be supported. It's a false dichotomy to think that if a theory is wrong, that is makes another one true. Scientific theories are not true because religious ones are wrong. Scientific theories are true because they are supported and testable. Scientific theories are found to be wrong all the time, but they aren't invalidated by religion. They are invalidated by better adherence to scientific method and better developments in observation and tooling.
Also, we don't do negative proofs. Atheists have no imperative to disprove what has never been proven. Similarly, if I claimed Napoleon was a red head, it wouldn't be your job to prove he wasn't. The claim belongs to me, and the burden falls on me to support my claims. Now, if I don't put any effort into supporting that he had red hair, does that mean a controversy exists? How is it intellectually superior to assume the agnostic middle ground (metaphorically) that we simply don't know? It is a false stalemate.