Even if the chance is “the tiniest chance,” it’s still a fantastically enormous claim – that there can be not only an intelligence without a physical body, but an intelligence before anything else exists. It provides no explanatory power at all, and is demonstrated by no evidence. That something is slightly possibly true does not mean it merits belief.

Posted: September 13th 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel

Even if there is the tiniest of chances that there is a god, there is even less chance that it is a theistic god, including the Judeo/Christian one with all its nonsense about heaven and hell.

An atheist does not have theistic god belief because of insufficient evidence as this type of god is said to interact with humanity and the universe, and despite this essential characteristic there is no indication that it does. Also the Christian god is logically impossible.

The majority of atheists at present are agnostic. Because of the lack of evidence, they just don’t bother with theistic god belief. As a deist god is just about useless even if it exists, atheists usually don’t bother with that angle either.

I am agnostic about the monster under my bed, but I still do not believe in it as there is no evidence. Now the gathering storm of dust balls under that same bed, yes, I believe in them as there is great evidence, that is, their disturbing existence.

Instead of my embracing the god of the gaps approach as you are doing, I simply await the results of scientific research to deepen my understanding of reality. I do not have to waste time following the tenets of a religion that most likely is just based on imagination. Since we have only one life, time is so very precious.

If evidence does present itself proving the existence of god(s), then most atheists would accept that fact but they would not be religious as they would just be accepting reality. No faith would be required, and most would not worship this entity. We would be a very different kind of theist then the one that exists today.

Posted: September 13th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

Sure, there’s a chance. There’s also a chance that it was sneezed into existence by the great green arkleseizure (assuming I have my HGTTG references correct).

But the fact remains that we really have no way of knowing what ways the universe could have come into being, so believing that it was caused in some specific way is not justified by the evidence. In the current situation, “we don’t know” is the only reasonable position.

For you personally, perhaps you can ask yourself what impact the difference between your position and the “we don’t know” position has on your life. My guess is that there is no difference.

I also suggest that you ruminate a bit on the difference between strong and weak atheism…

Posted: September 13th 2010

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

Atheism isn’t about absolute certainty there is no god. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. Just because there isn’t 100% certainty about something does not mean we can’t reasonably come to a clear conclusion about it; and nor does it mean that the likelihood either way is 50:50.

Just about every atheist I’ve ever encountered would acknowledge that there’s 'the tiniest of tiny chances’ that there’s a god. Personally I don’t think there’s even 'the tiniest of tiny chances’ that any such god would be the Christian one, because Christians have defined that one beyond the point of possibility, but of course I can’t absolutely, positively, definitely rule out the possibility of some undefined intelligence behind the universe.

The point is not, 'Is it possible?’ but 'Are there good grounds to think it is so?’ So far absolutely nothing points towards the existence of a god or other form of supernatural intelligence – so there is absolutely no reason at all to believe that one exists. Which is all that atheism means.

Obviously, if proper evidence for any kind of mind behind the universe were to become available at some stage, we’d reconsider our position, but until any such evidence is presented, it would be positively irrational to give credence to the claim.

Posted: September 13th 2010

See all questions answered by Paula Kirby

There’s no evidence for such a creator, so why should I believe in it?

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

The evidence for Creation is about the same as that for Russell’s teapot: there ain’t none. You can’t positively disprove the existence of a celestial teapot, and you don’t have to either. You don’t believe in things just because you can’t prove they’re not true. If you did, you’d have to believe so much nonsense you could hardly function. Belief is justified by a preponderance of evidence.

Atheism isn’t absolute knowledge of god’s nonexistence. Atheism just means you don’t believe.

Posted: September 13th 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke