Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[robvalue]

So.... What is your point, again? What are you suggesting we or anyone else do?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So.... What is your point, again? What are you suggesting we or anyone else do?

My point is that the existence of a "God" is more probable than the non-existence of such.
I think that this probable existence of a "God" makes pure atheism illogical because pure atheism is 100% believing in the non-existence of a "God" which is not the case.

Since this has turned out to be a debate kind of thread what i'd from anyone else including you would be to tell me i'm wrong and give me convincing input that points out the fact that i am wrong.

[Thackerie]

Meh. Sounds like another one of those phony-baloney "I used to be an atheist" claims to me. But, to be charitable, maybe he's not so much a fake as he is simply ignorant of what atheism entails.

[robvalue]

Uhh.... You seem to be talking about gnostic atheism (the claim of knowledge that there is no God). That's a minority position. Standard atheism can't be "wrong" because it's a statement of non belief. You are also conflating regular stuff with the usual supernatural definitions, for what purpose I can't guess.

Most atheists don't claim knowledge, just a lack of belief in supernatural God claims. They aren't generally talking about aliens.

I don't think many atheists would deny there may be aliens out there more powerful than us, so... does that make you happy?

[downbeatplumb]

My point is that the existence of a "God" is more probable than the non-existence of such.

No it isn't.

I think that this probable existence of a "God" makes pure atheism illogical because pure atheism is 100% believing in the non-existence of a "God" which is not the case.

Gods existence is not probable and indeed is very improbable.

I am currently 100% atheist but am willing to be swayed by evidence. Can a 100% theist say the same? 

Since this has turned out to be a debate kind of thread what i'd from anyone else including you would be to tell me i'm wrong and give me convincing input that points out the fact that i am wrong.

Well there is no evidence for a god nor is there any reason to think that such a thing exists. So there's that.

But on the subject of "the right to be an atheist", I have no option but to be an atheist and class myself as such because I do not believe in god.

[Tonus]

Since this has turned out to be a debate kind of thread what i'd from anyone else including you would be to tell me i'm wrong and give me convincing input that points out the fact that i am wrong.

Your claim is that it's more likely that god exists than that he doesn't. If we expand the definition of god to include powerful alien races that might have evolved somewhere else in the universe, then the likelihood increases. In either case, it should be much easier to prove the positive than the negative. I think it's impossible to prove that the metaphysical version of god that is often described by theists is not real, because by definition we can't prove him either way.

But it seems to me that people live their lives around things that we can verify and experience. Even those who believe in one deity or another tend to limit all other claims to the supernatural and treat them as fanciful. Many of our cultural and global celebrations are based around fantasy characters and ideas (Christmas being a good example) and we understand that they're just icons or cartoon characters and so on. Only when we come to god do we push aside the instincts and attitudes that serve us just fine the rest of the time. I keep gods in the same realm that everyone keeps mythical and legendary creatures in. If a unicorn ever trotted out of the forest or a dragon came screaming out of the skies, I'd add them to my list of Things That I Know Exist. When god shows up, he'll get added to that list as well. If that never happens, I won't worry about it.

[Aristocatt]

So.... What is your point, again? What are you suggesting we or anyone else do?

(1)My point is that the existence of a "God" is more probable than the non-existence of such.
(2)I think that this probable existence of a "God" makes pure atheism illogical because pure atheism is 100% believing in the non-existence of a "God" which is not the case.

Since this has turned out to be a debate kind of thread what i'd from anyone else including you would be to tell me i'm wrong and give me convincing input that points out the fact that i am wrong.

(1)This is false.  You can't put a probability on god.  You actually can't put a probability on the existence of an unknown entity at all, be it physical or metaphysical.  You can say that you believe that he is more likely to exist.  It it might sound as if you are making a probabilistic assertion, but you are not. 
(2)This is also false, but this is mainly false because you are confusing knowledge with belief.  You can have a belief and be unsure of it's accuracy.  When you are sure(what you might call 100% belief) that your belief is accurate, you then hold that your belief is knowledge.  Atheism is not a statement of knowledge.  Atheists do not, by definition of the label, hold that they believe god can not exist.  Atheism simply states that one rejects the hypothesis "God Exists". 

Since you mentioned probability lets have some fun examining the acceptability of atheism even if it were more likely that god existed than didn't. . .When we talk about accepting a hypothesis based on probability, we generally talk about rejecting the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is the opposite hypothesis of the hypothesis that is being gauged for it's validity.  When we are trying to determine correlation or causality(when probabilistic statements are acceptable) we always hold the null hypothesis to be true, and the burden of proof is on the researches to show us that we should reject it.  Now usually we don't reject the null hypothesis unless we can show that we are 95% sure that their is causality or correlation.  It doesn't make sense adding probability to the existence of something, but if we were to do so and if we were also to keep our same standards when applying probabilistic techniques to the likelihood of gods existence, the atheist standpoint would still be valid unless we were 95% sure of gods existence. This is however just for fun.

[JesusHChrist]

My point is that the existence of a "God" is more probable than the non-existence of such.

You calculated this probability how exactly?

[robvalue]

I'm not sure what it matters what our opinions about the probability of advanced alien life is.

What difference does it make to anything?

You're the first person I've ever heard use "God" to mean aliens. Why not just say aliens?

[Aristocatt]

My point is that the existence of a "God" is more probable than the non-existence of such.

You calculated this probability how exactly?

Should read

"You calculated this probability how?  . . .(moment of silence)  Exactly!!