No I don’t think that is right at all.

The onus is on those who choose to believe that there is such an extraordinary phenomenon as God to show some reason for their belief. The default condition is disbelief. As Scott said earlier, we don’t believe that there is a silver tea set in orbit around the moon. Why would we? If someone wants us to believe that then he has to provide a convincing reason.

Scientists actually are comfortable about the universe starting from something that we would call nothing and they have a lot of very complicated math and physics to make their case. I am not really convinced because I don understand it but I believe that this could still be satisfactory evidence and the fact that I don’t understand it is my fault. There does not have to be an explanation that is simple and easy to understand. The universe is not like that.

I am inclined to believe their explanation because I know that there is no faith involved with scientists when they put forward an explanation like that. They tell me that although some of the details about what was happening in the first nanoseconds after the big bang are not all explained yet, the bulk of it is.

There is no need to invent something as unlikely as God to explain it. That is what ancient superstitious, and ignorant people did. We don’t have to be like them anymore, and there is no reason to accept any explanations that they made a long time ago from their ignorance. Occam’s raser.

I don’t even accept that asserting that there is no god is a belief. To be precise, it is the absence of a belief and therefore the direct opposite. I don’t accept either that I have to have an alternative belief to yours that God created the universe. I am content to accept that I (we) just don’t know but a lot of people who are much more educated than I am probably do know.
Intelligent design is nonsense.