>>45 here
>>46
I've examined the evidence, and determined that there is no reason to believe an intelligent initial creator exists, and no reason to specifically believe one didn't. Hence, I leave it as an open question.
>>48
But there probably are some atheists who believe God can't possibly exist, and it's those ones that I'd want to distance myself from. I understand perfectly that the onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, and that belief in some initial creator is about as indeterminate as believing that a piece of turd exists in the middle of a galaxy millions of light-years away. But my point is this: I don't think we should dismiss the fundamental question of whether an initial stimulus was provided to the universe or not, rather, it is something we should be having open in our minds and striving towards solving.
Take an example, let's say a mathematician is working on solving a problem, a potential solution of which may have drastic implications on the whole of science. The mathematician does not see that there is no evidence of a solution existing (which, let's say, there isn't) and simply assume there isn't and forget about it. His first and foremost task is to try and find that solution, or at least prove that one exists.