Urist
If you want to make conclusions about matters humans can barely comprehend
We do not know everything about the universe, sure, but to say it is outside our scope of comprehension is a stretch that I would argue follows from religious dogma: “God works in mysterious ways” and all that. In fact, the developments of the last centuries have shown that most of the things we thought were mysterious, we could actually explain with science.
Most religious people claim to know more about the world than atheists: After all, they are the ones having some sort of relationship with some ethereal/omnipotent being.
Atheists mean by the second that they find as little material basis for believing in god as in [insert whack theory here (teapot, spaghettimonster, etc.)]. We do make a judgement one way or the other, we say that our default position is not believing literally incredible things without proof.
The bar for what needs to be proven unless assumed false is higher the more that is claimed. Since god (especially to monotheistic denominations) are by definition the highest being claimed to exist, there is a huge burden of proof required for believing in it. Since there exists none, we choose to assume that the statement is false.
The reason we make all these stupid analogies is to hammer through the point that we, like everyone else, make a lot of assumptions that unproven things are false. The question of god is not really special in this regard, except for the historical and biological conditions that makes people inclined to believe in the fairytale absent of any good objective reason.
So there is actually a valid critisism of Russel’s teapot, or toaster in this case, that there could be a detectable causality that put the object in orbit even if the object itself cannot be observed (such as a rocket to deliver it). However, this (minor) flaw in a popularized analogy does nothing to reject what the analogy represents: A stupid idea that cannot really be falsified, even though it is false (see what I did there?).
Atheist do not carry any belief in not believing (this even sounds stupid). We simply have come to the conclusion that there is no basis for believing in any particular denomination, nor some unspecific general one for that matter.
I am pretty certain our brains evolved to filter out friendly/known voices some tens of thousands of years (or more) ago. I feel tired sometimes before and after coffee, and often less so on coffee breaks because the real issue with coffee is that the caffeine can definitely disrupt sleep.
I understand you need consistency to not be engaged by sounds. I hope you understand that other people have other limitations, hence, again, it is your first statement I disagree with.
I see you repeating the claim that it makes sleeping more difficult, but I do think those that listen to sounds, be it ocean waves or someone talking, have the experience that it makes it easier for them to fall asleep.
Sure, there can be problems with sleep quality for numerous reasons. However, making a blanket statement that this disrupts the sleep, especially of those that have positve experience with it, is going to need some factual sources (that I do not think exists).
According to what I have read, it is fine if it is not too stimulating.
EDIT: Also, it is easy to take a break from coffee: It only requires not drinking a few cups. Either way it does not really prevent fatigue, at most delaying it.
How is it bad sleep hygiene to fall asleep to noise? If it is adequately non-engaging, it is pretty much the same as other white noise. Furthermore, it really depends on each person what makes them relax.
To paraphrase an actual sleep scientist (and not just talk out of my ass like most people do about health):
It is easy to see know if you are getting enough sleep. If you feel tired during the day, you need more sleep.