Virgil wrote:

... has proposed that gods are impossible ...

That's a lie. Your side makes the proposition in question, that there might be
X (whatever you imagine X is) anyway, even though there is nothing in evidence
you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can
do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to anyone who questions your
lame ideas.

Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ is is no better disguised than that of these
theologs of Galileo's time:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon
is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled
in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining
with no basis in fact.]