Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

Actually, there is a basis for the claim 'giant creator leprechauns don't exist' - semantics. 'Giant leprechaun' is a contradiction in terms, since (without going into the tedium of translation) 'leprechaun' means 'small body'.  Granted that 'small' and 'giant' are relative terms, these are generally taken to be relative in relation to the size of human beings.  Thus, I can confidently state that giant creator leprechauns do not exist.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled point.

Boru