"I don't think they do, because the inductive reasoning and available evidence (empirical or rational) are overwhelmingly in favor that they don't."
Thats the point~ An idea is not lent any credibility just because there is no direct evidence against it~ it is only lent credibility when there is evidence for it.
There is no evidence for a god of any sort, in any concept. There was no evidence at the time for black swans either. Yes, they were wrong, but it wasn't necessarily their reasoning that was wrong, it was the scope of their knowledge that was insufficient. The natives that lived in the america's had no concept of Europeans or other people, because there was no reason for them to. While they were wrong, they were right within the scope of their knowledge. While we don't know the answers of the universe, there is no credible reason to believe that there is a god, no credible reason to lend the idea any weight at all. Yes, we could be wrong, but being wrong about a reasonable idea is infinitely better than being right about an unreasonable one.
The Tooth Fairy is more beleiveable than all this godgobbering jehovah jiving jesus junkie gods muck enduced slaughtering of untold millions since it's invention.
And for what?
An absurd notion of a weird sky man with super powers.
Where is the intelligence in that!!!
The thing that I HATE so much about all godgobbers is that they are supposed to be protected and given respect because of strange political correctness ideas by wowseristic do-gooders and even some so called Atheists.
I call these Atheists, Psuedo Atheists.
Freedom of religion has done nothing but caused untold slaughter on Planet Ours. It is our planet.And our planet has been infected by this cancerous scourge called religion. And let's NEVER EVER forget the never ending sexual abuse of innocent kids that lurks around religion. Especially in the biggest godgobbering cults on Planet Ours, such as the catholic and anglican.
All the screaming protests about them not being cults make me wanna throw up on these claims.The monstrous catholic billion dollar empire has always been and forever will tick all the boxes on what a cult is. And so does all the rest of these groups of super sky man beleivers.
sorry for joining late...
I am 100% certain that no God or Gods as described by any major (or minor) religion has any existence at all. I am 99.9% certain that no supernatural higher power of any kind exists, but if there was something it is unlikely to be anything like any of the descriptions in world religion which almost exclusively (apart from Buddhism??) seem to give "god" certain human attributes (for obvious reasons!).
Physics and nature are more powerful than we are, which would make them higher powers ;-) Do I need to go to church to believe in nature? lol
I suppose it depends on your definition of "God". If you are talking about the all knowing, all caring, and all powerful super being who controls everything... I can say I'm 100% sure there is no such being. If you're just talking about a much more advanced being who started this whole existence off, I'd say there's a small...very, very small chance (don't want to put a number to it).
I always get baffled by the idea of a super being, which is all knowing and all powerful, but wants or need the worship and love of such small and insignificant things such as humans. The ego on that being would be extremely scary!!
I just wanted to edit my reply....edit by adding to it, because I believe I showed poor skill in my argument.
I do not believe in God because I've never been shown any form of evidence what so ever and I no more believe in God than I do the tooth fairy, but I have about the same chance of disproving the tooth fairy as I do disproving God... The burden of proof isn’t on me. My jump to "100% sure" I'm chalking up to an emotional response to arguments from the other side that ignore reason or outright lie, with and without malice, to try to prove that they are correct.
Hey Casey, how are things?
If I may, I'd like to make a small comment about the 'burden of proof' thing. I'm making it to clear my own thoughts about 'burden of proof', which has been prompted by your comment.
If somebody makes a claim about something to you, for example: an English Mastiff. How can you make judgement on the claim if you know nothing about dogs.
If I tell you the English Mastiff is only one foot long and six inches high upon reaching adulthood, that would make me a liar. But, what would it make you if you believed me.
If I show you a Chihuahua and say look, here is proof of an English Mastiff. If you have never done any research in regards to these two breeds of dog, how could you make any judgement about the dog, upon me showing you the fake English Mastiff.
Sure, there is a 'burden of proof' on me, to prove to you, I have an English Mastiff, but if you have done no research into the matter, the 'burden of proof' thing is meaningless.
Lately, I've been thinking it must be hard for American Atheists. For me Atheism has always been the norm, I was an Atheist before I even knew what the word meant. What about you?