1/ The balance of probability says that The Universe was 'created'.
This statement has a huge number of issues and embedded unsubstantiated assumptions. These include the following:
There is sufficient information to calculate the probability that a universe was created - presumably by a creator -versus the option that it wasn't.
There is a need for an in depth understanding of how the creator created the universe and an in depth understanding of the alternative - that a creator was not involved in how the universe could come into being without a creator. These understandings are required in order to calculate the probabilities.
Talking of probability for a creator implies that such a believer is expressing an uncertainty of his/ her belief in a creator, which is not that far removed from the atheist position which also claims uncertainty even though the uncertain position is expressed more strongly.
Talking of a probability implies an acknowledgement that there may not be a creator. Again this position is not that far removed from the atheist position which acknowledges that a creator may exist and a belief in a creator will be embraced if good rational evidence is found.
On your last point, I think you are talking about an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist has 'gone the whole hog' and dismissed the idea of a God as being too improbable, and not supported by the available evidence. Moreover, if the classic religionist point of view of heaven, hell, devils, sin etc is dismissed, it becomes easier to move to the atheist camp as there is no negative consequence 'in the afterlife' from adopting an atheist viewpoint.
As an atheist you can advocate for the abolition of harmful religious indoctrination of children and against the other harm that religion does in society.
Regarding 'the balance of probability' thing, the other guy was arguing that the balance of probability was for the existence of 'God' - but he takes great umbrage at being referred to therefore as a 'Godist'. It was very difficult for me to get an understanding of what he actually 'believes'. If he is simply open to the idea of a God and is waiting for some evidence of Gods existence, and will move into the 'God' camp when that evidence is presented, then you would say he is an 'Agnostic'.
But it seems that he is coming from a place of saying a lot, while seeking to define very little. While still looking to be in the 'Godist' camp on balance.
I would personally say that if you say God has a 'consciousness', and is able to execute a 'perfect' plan, then there is very little practical difference between that version of God and the anthropomorphic God - as the key attributes of 'God' are common to both.
Another interesting idea introduced in darkrooms previous post was 'relative perfectionism'. This is a contradiction in terms. Once again, a contradiction in terms undercuts Godist arguments. Something is either perfect, or it isn't. If it isn't perfect, then where does that leave the Godists(?) Back at square 1, or square Zero.
On the subject of anger, maybe Godists need to present the other side of the debate as 'angry' in order to present themselves as more rational(?) It's a form of ad hominem attack, which the Godist side of the debate seek to make out they scrupulously avoid.
