I'll do you the fairness of looking into him, never heard of him before. As for giving your point of view respect, I'm not disrespecting your point of view. The entire point of everything I have said, as I keep telling you, is that it is impossible to confirm or deny either the atheistic or theistic point of view. If I were to act like atheists are automatically wrong I'd be completely disregarding my own beliefs. Now to share a teapot-related analogy of my own.
The idea that Bertrand Russel purported is that the atheistic point of view is simply the denial of the religious point of view. It doesn't need evidence to support it. No, you can't outright confirm or deny either atheism or theism, just like you can't outright confirm that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun. That doesn't mean you start telling me "well you cannot confirm or deny either that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun or there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun, so we'll just leave it up to speculation". The scientific community would instantly deny the idea of a teapot orbiting the Sun if I tried to publish a paper on it, just like it would instantly deny the idea of a God if I published a paper saying "A higher power is real". Unless of course I found empirical evidence, which as of right now does not exist.
As for the respect thing, it's mostly the way you don't quote or respond to my reasons for actually believing atheists don't require any burden of proof for their denial of an idea, and instead respond with something along the lines of "I've already said this is wrong stop ignoring me". I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with it with a counterargument.
"Pot, this is the Kettle. You're black." I'm assuming unlike my ignorance of Mr. Russel you're probably familiar with that saying (unless it's not as common in your country?)
Nope. Never heard it in my life. Google seems to think it's just another way for you to say "you're doing what you say I'm doing" without any supporting evidence though, so whatever.
But I'm not on the side against atheism? I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't have to provide evidence because my entire perspective is that there is no evidence and until there is I think any explanation is as good as the other.
You'll have to excuse me for not responding to the first half of your post, I have no desire to go back around the same loop over and over where we both continuously point out the same things.
What, like positive and negative statements, which you consistently ignore to the point where I wonder if it's possible to be allergic to words? Or the part where I counter your misinformation by taking the consensus actually established in the field of religious debate and putting it right in front of you? Of course, you won't actually tell me which of your points
I'm ignoring (or when you do, it's completely ignoring my actual responses to those points).
Is this whole thread going to be the game where we both keep calling each other out for doing what they're accusing the other of? Supporting evidence is important and I'm giving it to you constantly. Every time you say "you're ignoring x", I give you my opinion on that thing and you go all quiet. You rotate between "you're ignoring x" and "you're ignoring all my points". You're specific in one post and then vague in the next post so you don't have to respond to my response. It's rather bothersome.
And you're going to respond to this post, possibly without even quoting this part, with something along the lines of "I'm not even responding to this nonsense/it'll just be going around in circles". Well I'm not doing that, despite you consistently ignoring everything I say, ignoring me putting my counter arguments in front of you (positive and negative statements) as you repeat the same argument (you have burden of proof too because you're making a claim) which I have already challenged. You just don't respond to the challenge.
