cejuan

Technically, I could be considered a weak atheist or an agnostic. I don't call myself an atheist simply because I don't want to focus on the trivial question of whether god exists. Focusing on that will get me in to discussions with creationists about the details of evolution, the age of the earth and the universe, etc. My brain doesn't remember the sort of details necessary to debate the existance of god with these people in real time, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time looking up and verifying facts as needed to debate them correctly.

Instead, I like to focus on the following two more important questions
1) who can tell me the details of god?
2) what gives god the right to dictate morality?

Without the answers to these questions, the existance question is of no significance. Being an agnostic allows me to say, "You're right, I can't prove god doesn't exist, now you prove you know what he's thinking and why I should care what he's thinking".

Probability_Amplitude

In my opinion, it is fallacious to draw an analogy between god, celestial teapots and spaghetti monsters and I suspect that it was not Russel's intention to equate god with such but rather make a point on the burden of proof. I.e the burden of proof is on the claimant.

As it stands, the possibility of a pre natural entity that had something to do with the universe is far more plausible, in my eyes, than a celestial teapot.

__________________
I am free, at last.