Wouldn't it stand to reason that the possibility of God has to be considered?

I admit God is a possibility, but unlikely.

You know your god exists.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Because if your god exists, the Hindu gods don't exist, in spite of the fact that millions of people believe in them. Since you believe that atheists should consider the possibility of your god's existence, don't you then think that you should consider the possibility of the existence of other gods, and keep an open mind about it?... but that would be a sin, wouldn't it.

By accepting the christian god, you rejected all other gods, and I doubt that you considered for long the possibility of their existence, and I know for a fact that you didn't study all of the gods of all faiths in the world, because it would be impossible.

Please do not tell me that christian belief is "more rational" than other beliefs, because it isn't- that's your cultural bias. A devout follower of any other religion will tell me the same thing, with as much reason.

The majority of atheists do not believe in the supernatural because we live in the natural world and there is no unbiased "evidence" that a supernatural world exists.

If there is ever any such thing as unbiased evidence that the supernatural exists, that will still not prove that god as you believe in him exists. Even if god were to make himself known in ways that could only be considered miraculous, man would have no way of knowing whether anything that god said about himself were true.

The fact is, if I followed your advice and kept an open mind about religion, I'd never belong to any religion anyway for the simple reason that I stated above: there would be no evidence upon which I could conclude what religion is the "true" religion, what gods exist or any of the rest of it. But I don't need to do that because to date no one has shown one iota of unbiased evidence that the supernatural exists, and I repeat, even if some supernatural being did communicate with us, we would have no way of knowing whether there were one god or a thousand because we would have no way of knowing whether anything we were told about "the other world" were true. So what's the point? If I entertain the possibility that the christian god exists, I am forced to admit the possibility that any god exists and I'm faced with the fact that there's no possibility that I'll ever have an answer as to the existence of any of them. That's a waste of time to even contemplate.

Yours is a moot point. Nobody becomes an atheist without considering the possibility that deities exist.

As to the possibility of a god: Strictly speaking it's possible. It's just that deities are very unlikely to exist, especially when there's zero evidence for any of them. I'd say they as unlikely to exist than I'm to win the lottery while being bit by a shark that is struck by lightning that emanated from a tesla-coil that was built by a team of midgets etc..

It's possible for you to win the lottery while being bit by a shark that is struck by lightning that emanated from a tesla-coil that was built by a team of midgets etc.. Yet why on earth would you believe it would actually happen someday?

Edit: "1) we can feel it even though we don't see it, 2) we see the results of it's energy, then I would argue there is the same amount of evidence for God."

Not quite. 1) The evidence for wind isn't that we can feel it. The evidence is that we can OBSERVE it. The same cannot be said about a deity, so the analogy is lacking. 2) We have simpler explanations for the energy in our observable universe, and simpler explanations are always to be preferred because they're more likely to be true. That's the way of science. The proposition of 'god' as an answer to the energy is a bad one for the same reasons that my lottery example is a bad answer for the question "What will happen tomorrow at five-o-clock?": It's very unlikely.

The question remains: Why believe in staggeringly unlikely things? It's not reasonable.

Any atheist I've ever met would be open to the existence of a God if there was proof of some kind of higher power. And the actual disprovability of certain Gods (like the Christian God, for example), makes it even more difficult to believe.

But I agree with you that there is a possibility that there could be a creator.

*Atheists: have you ever considered the prospect that God might exist? God is truthfully conceivable, yet no longer as marketed. Even a supernatural being won't be able to concurrently be omniscient, all-powerful, all only, all merciful, elementary and unempirical. human beings shaggy dog tale approximately heavy rocks however the anomaly is a lot deeper. *Do you think of while the spirit of God is flying over the exterior of the waters he seems at his mirrored image? does not have a mirrored image. (in all hazard gets vampire rigidity.) *have you ever considered the prospect that he could like chocolate cake and orange juice? what's it you Westerners have against fish? *have you ever considered what form of motor vehicle jesus might stress if he have been nonetheless alive? i'm thinking a hybrid or an electric vehicle. Jesus might walk or use public transit. *Do you think of Jesus might commerce in his sandals for shoes with straps like previous human beings placed on, might he placed on lace up shoes or loafers? in all hazard moccasins, genuine? All that walking toughens up the ft. If he had to placed on shoes, he'd in all hazard discover something on the Goodwill or Salvation military shops. (extra in all hazard he'd be in Asia making shoes.) *have you ever considered God in denims? Wranglers, perhaps. *What approximately trousers? confident. even though the locals are wearing, except it somewhat is a few style of vogue assertion. He does not truly concern approximately what he eats, drinks or wears. all those questions might annoy him.

I am agnostic myself. I think that's the only logically defensible position.

What I see here are arrogant Christians telling atheists they -must- believe in God, and arrogant atheists telling Christians that their beliefs are mental disease. I think they're both wrong.

I think people are completely within their rights to choose to believe in God, and also to decide they won't believe anything that can't be proven (but if you talk to an atheist for 10 minutes you will see that he also believes in things that can't be proven, just not God. It's something everyone does).

But I see arguments from Christians that ALL atheists are arrogant and bash Christians, and the same argument from Christians about atheists. And neither of these are true. There is a whole spectrum on either side, from intolerance to acceptance. You just -see- the intolerant ones, they stand out.

Also it's a far cry from 'accepting the possibility that God exists' to BELIEVING in God, and knowing all about him.

I don't want to seem condescending, but I find that some Atheists can be real stubborn. Some of you talk about science and what can be explained through science and evolution, but it does not explain HOW we as human beings and everything else in this world got here. Then you argue that it is not always about a who, but in fact it is always about a who. Babies would not be here if it were not for their mothers and fathers; those people are whos. Trees would not be here if it were not from seeds; seeds are whos. But it all has to stem back to some being who is almighty enough to create all of this. I just find many atheists to use science as a scapegoat when in fact it doesn't prove that God does not exist. Really, it proves God does in fact exist.

P.S. Now you can thumbs down me.

I believe that if you don't have solid proof for why something does not exist then you have to accept there is a possibility. not only does this go for atheists not believing in God, but i think the same can be applied to religious people and evolution or the big bang. people are so set in their ways and stubbornly refuse to proved wrong. it annoys me.

I admit the possibility of a deity. But since deities regarding to specific monotheistic religions are defined by self-contradictory dogma, they can be shown to be irrelevant and non-existent. A more general, deistic god, I'd go up to 1% doubt for.

In general, I give the idea of a sentient deity of the sort used by monotheistic religions as much regard as I do for tap-dancing vampire hitmen.

Sure, God is a possibility, but very highly unlikely, to the same extent that it is a possibility that the universe was created as a by-product of the greek god Ouranos' bodily fluids. It is much more likely that the universe was formed through natural causes, since we have observed planets and stars form elsewhere in the universe via natural processes.

I agree. It's part of the reason I refuse to associate myself with the atheists or the theists. I'll remain independent. It goes the same for politics. Until someone shows me a sign of salvation for humanity I'll remain an independent.

I do feel faith is setting yourself up for a big let down though.

.