Well I guess it depends on what is meant by God, the word is not in my vocabary. However for most useages I have seen of the word it would be indistiguasbale form 100%, so I chose other.

This is a cop out. If I took you to a 5 star restaurant and asked if you thought there was a kangaroo in the kitchen, you wouldn't know either. But you can at least assign a probability to it even if it's just a very rough estimate (which is what most are doing anyway).

This.

You realize that theist and atheist simply refers to a belief in god, and gnostic and agnostic refers to knowledge, right?

I am an agnostic atheist. That is, I do not claim knowledge as to the existence of god one way or the other (agnostic). But I also do not hold the belief that a god exists (atheist).

You may feel the same way about Trudy who is said to reside in the 7th dimension and created our universe with a sneeze. You have no knowledge of Trudy one way or the other (so you'd be agnostic). Yet, you also have no reason to hold the belief that Trudy exists (so you'd be an a-trudyist).

You seem to think that being close to 100% implies an irrationality. Not so. I'm guessing you'd be close to 100% sure that Trudy doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean strong. The person ITT who declared 100% certainty that god doesn't exist is a strong atheist. They are few and far between. I also happen to think it's an irrational position to hold. 100% certainty gets to be a claim in itself that needs to be justified. How do you justify 100% certainty over anything?

They are actual probabilities, but they are evidential, rather than physical probabilities.

You're not 100% sure Trudy doesn't exist?

Whut is the chance that a jewish guy was killed a few thousand years ago? 100%. Whut was the chance he was nice? 95%. Whut is the chance that his death would become the thing that people scared of dying would use as proof of an afterlife, in a world where something as simple as a card trick would likely have gotten you killed for being in league with evil forces? 100%

Whut are the chances you will end up a pile of bones when you pass away, taking all that your are with you when the lights go out? 100% Would it be nice to have an afterlife? You bet, but really...you want to piss away what little time you have on this rock bowing to a dusty fairy tale, be my guest.

I'm 100% sure I exist. Being 100% sure of just about anything else is, of course, very foolish though.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999... % that the god of abraham as described and as revealed in the existing "holy" texts does not exist.

if we define "god" as a non-personal deity that doesn't give a rat's behind - or doesn't even know - about whats going on in this ridiculous little planet, then i'm not sure. but it wouldn't matter in that case.

It is code for 'there is no situation where the possibility the thing exists will alter my actions'. In other word its an entirely pragmatic position. No philosophical crap like 100% likelihood is different in any real sense from 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. Beliefs are a decision making tools, and two almost identical beliefs that under all circumstances will produce the same decision might as well be considered as the same.

Do atheists who choose say 95% really understand what they are saying. Is say a biblical Christian God existing more likely than hitting a two outer on the river – something I have done numerous times?

god = an infinitely powerful anthropomorphic entity => 100% does not exist
god = something whose humanly describable properties are automatically invariant => 0% does not exist

(I'm seriously trying to become a Platonist.)

I clicked 99.9%. then I thought about it and realized that it's probably not something quantifiable at all.

voted 99.9% but it is closer to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99%

This is exactly the problem I have with 100%. It is irrational to hold a position that cannot be changed even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Except that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% at least allows for some margin for error. It's a weird universe and we don't yet understand it. We have discovered many things just in the last 200 years that people living prior to this would have put the odds around 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% against. Do you think they would be wrong to change their position if they were still living today?

We mostly agree. I'm just being a nit about 100% certainty.

I would hope most of them do. But I think there's a big gap between the existence of a deistic god and the specific Christian god of the bible. Their both +99% for me, but I think a deistic god is much more likely, imo.

The bible (a book) says that god sent his son to be our saviour.

Marvel comics (Similar to a book) says supermans dad did the same.


Does this mean that superman's real?


For what it's worth i don't believe in god but i'll probably get real religous JUST before the bus hits me.

Other. It depends how God is defined. If God is love like some say, i would say God exists because love exists. If God is the universe like some pantheists say, i would say God exists because the universe exits. If God is Yahweh, i would say God doesn't exist as confidently as i would say the Mayan rain God doesn't. If God is a sentient being who created the universe, maybe he does..., though i wouldn't want to give a percentage because i know vary little about the universe or existence.

Maybe difference between pragmatism and (over)philosophising.

It is quite a common technique in science and mathematics to create equivalent class of objects that are indistinguishable and treat them as effectively the same thing. For instance if your measuring instrument (e.g. telescope or microscope) has a minimum resolution than distances that differ by less than that minimum resolution are considered the same.

There is of course a trap here. Say someone picks 95%. What does that mean.

If it relates to say the existence of orthodox Christian god (wahtever that means), or maybe Jibninjas' god. Then he now needs to consider all the other religions, say start with non orthodox Christian gods and assign probabilities. Fairly soon he is going to find he's got a greater than 100% chance of god existing!

Say the 95% relates to any form of god. Well I guess that includes the Sun, the Moon and various Roman and Egyptian emperors lumps of rock etc. I suspect he will want to change 95% to somewhere nearer 0%.

If he says the 95% relates to all sensible religions combined, then the number is entirely subjective and comparing the results in a poll meaningless.

Actually in many cases I suspect the person just does not understand what 95% means here.

i don't get it, if u are atheist u cant give a chance god exists


50% would be a weak atheist or weak theist?

God just refers to an intelligent purposeful creator of reality

Even atheists have to allow for evil deceiver hypothesis and other such possibilities. As do theists.

I put 80%. Its probably more then that but I think that is healthy for now.

1. Information
I know a lot more about kangaroos than about a possible god. This knowledge makes it a lot easier for me to judge the kangaroo situation. My knowledge about god: everybody has a different opinion about him but in general he seems to be allmighty, all-knowing, invisible, a little weird and is basically everywhere.

2. The second problem is the messenger.
In your example the messenger is you. I dont know you, I dont trust you and last but not least you are from the internetz: my answer "yeah, troll´s gonna troll."

But change the messenger: a guy with a more grown up humor, so you know he is serious. even more: you know that he truly believes what he says. Then my answer would be that it is quite likely that there really is a kangaroo in that kitchen (it is a 5 star restaurant after all - you never know what exotic food they serve there that day )

Now let´s say that it is not only one guy who claims this but several. they all describe the kangaroo differently but they all agree there is a kangaroo in there - among these people are some of the greatest minds and brightest intellectuals of their ages - and they believe what they say. in this case: even if i had looked into the kitchen and seen nothing i still would have serious doubts that there really is no kangaroo in there.

then again: comparing god to a kangaroo in a kitchen is pretty ridiculous which means i´m gonna stick to what i said earlier: i just cant give a percentage. not enough data etc etc etc.

I always dislike this general explanation because it's too vague. Atheists recognize that some Gods proposed by theists are highly unlikely/impossible to exist due to it's properties, stories claimed to be giving their attributes, etc. When you just give a vague definition like "creator" it's just so vague that my view is that the existence of some type of creator can range from maybe possible to highly unlikely/impossible. What's the point of receiving this type of answer with such a wide range?

* let me just add that to an atheist there is no evidence for any type of creator, so I think trying to arrive with some percentage of what we think is likely and unlikely is pretty much worthless cause we are trying to use numbers as if this is some number based on data which we have, but obviously we don't have any data to arrive with any number.

After all this time hearing how atheism is merely "the lack of belief in a god" and therefore not a positive claim needing justification, it's funny to see so many answers in the 99% area. Hopefully these people will be less shy for the next "justify your belief with evidence" thread. Those "99% atheists" whose beliefs are based on faith rather than evidence will of course be excused.

This.

If you are an atheist then the answer is 100%

If the % is less than that, then you are something else!

How hard is that?