True, true, but it's not worth lying to yourself. I say that as a general idea to live by, I'm not at all trying to attack you post/comment. If anything this discussion is really intriguing, and I'll be damned the idea is food for thought.
And that's where we differ, because I'd say to not acknowledge the existence of God is to lie to oneself. Haha, well there you have it! That's all I was really going for.
For me, if I am uncertain of something, I assume the null hypothesis, unless indicated otherwise. If you had a button in front of you, and knew that there was a possibility that if you pressed the button, a car would fall onto you, would you press it? Why is God any different?
I don't think those two scenarios can be compared to one another. When done correctly, believing in God yields no negative consequences.
Well, okay, so I'm not saying believing in God has a negative consequence, but I am saying that...a better metaphor is Russell's teapot. Essentially, if you claim that God exists, then by the same logic you have no problem believing me if I tell you that a teapot is floating between Mars and Earth.
Haha, that's a very funny metaphor. But to be honest, I don't have a problem admitting that that's possible. However, I do feel as if my belief in God is based in evidence. That evidence being the impact on people's life when you can tell they're a godly person, or even all the nature around us. I accredit that to God's doing, and so that's my proof. Whether you believe it's credible proof is up to you. For me however, it's convincing.