I think you may have misunderstood Russell's argument!You could easily have 2000 years of debate about the glazing on Russell's Teapot.
I am rather afraid you have probably misunderstood the dialectic here. The teapot analogy is used in this instance in response to a theist arguing that atheism is irrational because there can be no proof of God's non-existence.
That is, when the theist argues that the inability to disprove a thesis shifts the burden onto those sceptical of the thesis, even and especially when the claim is unfalsifiable in principle,
He commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The teapot analogy is a way of illustrating this fallaciousness.
It is not that believing in God and believing in the teapot are epistemically on par, but rather that the reason given in this instance is a poor one.
Philosophy is about arguments and reasons, so poor arguments are met with examples that demonstrate their ridiculousness.