Some versions of God CAN be disproven. Others can't. The gnostic atheist position is that none of them exist. The gnostic atheist position is one that cannot meet its burden of proof. I'm satisfied the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, and no one I've taken on in that matter has been able to do better than re-define that God in a way that fundamentalists would not accept. Why should I take on every God of which anyone can conceive? If legislation isn't being based on what that God supposedly wants, it's enough that there's insufficient justification to believe that it's real, it doesn't really matter if it can be disproven.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
