sourmìlk wrote:That's not what I said. It's more reasonable to assert that something does not exist when it's falsifiable (and when the evidence backs up that assertion, even just inductively) then when it's literally impossible to know. Doubting is perfectly reasonable either way. Making affirmative statements about unfalsifiable things is less so.
I think Russell's Teapot is relevant to the current discussion. Stating that a divine entity exists in a manner that is not falsifiable doesn't make the argument for them any stronger at all.
That being said, while I'd consider myself a strong agnostic-atheist, I think it's ultimately futile to look down on someone, or declare someone irrational for, their religious beliefs. Ultimately, if you are in a position where you find their beliefs utterly implausible, they will almost certainly have the same sentiment towards your beliefs with equal conviction.