Yazata,
But what atheists are typically doing with the 'invisible unicorns' analogy is responding to a bad theistic argument that says in effect:
I disagree. It is meant to end the discussion like asking ''who/what created God'', when they know that the theist believes that God is neither created nor destroyed. In fact that is fundamental to theism. If God were material we wouldn't regard Him as God.
It shows an unwillingness to accept the definition of God (belief aside), and an eagerness to kill God in the minds of people.
It is also used to poke fun.
Inability to prove that God doesn't exist means that it's reasonable to think that he does. (Certainly as reasonable as the atheist belief that he doesn't.)
Theists don't believe in God on the basis of arguing whether or not He is real. Believing that God exists does not make someone a theist. To believe in something, one has to do more than sign on a dotted line. It is clear that Anthony Flew, throughout his atheist campaign believed that God existed, but tried to convince himself that He didn't. Also there are priests, vicars, and pastors, who spend years of their life pretending to believe that God exists.
Belief, is actual, not fantasy, or some idea, which is why man cannot extinguish the idea of God, fully within peoples minds. That time will naturally arise, just like it say's in the scriptures. We can see it occurring throughout the world, everyday as it becomes a little more God-less.
The 'invisible unicorn' example, along with 'Russell's teapot' and other variants, are part of the counter-argument that there are no end of things, some of them quite ridiculous, whose existence we can't actually disprove. It certainly isn't reasonable to believe in the existence of all of those things.
Russel knows that is not the basis upon which all people who accept God, believes. He could simply have said ''I can't believe in God'' and leave it there. But he tried to ridicule it by reducing it children's fairytales.
Credit to him though, it struck a chord with some, who have sought to disrupt religious dialogue, successfully.
Which in turn suggests that stronger epistemic justification is necessary. We need credible and positive reasons to believe in the existence of things. Noting that the existence of something can't be disproven is insufficient reason to believe in its reality.
If you need what you regard as credible and positive reasons to believe in God. It suggests, that (a) you currently don't believe in God (for which you have equally not credible and positive reasons), and (b) you have not allowed yourself to accept who and what God is, by dint of scriptures. IOW, you are only prepared to choose a brand of satisfaction.
(a) is your current position, your zone/platform, regarding your perception of this world through your experience within it. My position is the opposite, period. There is no right or wrong regarding either of our positions, as we are being truthful to ourselves.
If you need to be convinced that God exists, then you will never be convinced, anymore than you would be convinced that your wife will love you for the rest of your life, due to some psychological evaluation from a number of experts (so-called)
I can, and do, act as though God doesn't exist. More than I act as though He does. This means that a good portion of the day is spent with God not in mind. But I cannot believe that He does not exist, anymore than an atheist can believe He does.
(b) is quite simple. You don't accept the scriptures. Atheists in general cannot bear the scriptures. They see it as some book of moral codes they have to live by, or they will burn in hell forever. This is the nonsense they focus on even though that is not in any scripture, and is not what they, or real religion is about. I'm not sure what your real position is, so I don't put you in this bracket. But it is brain-washingly synonymous with card carrying atheists.
I am convinced that there are atheists who will never, ever believe in God, in this life, because they are doing everything they can to not open their minds to it, and such divergences such as pink unicorn, and celestial teapot, is used to ensure this.
It didn't work for Anthony Flew.
jan.