Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2012 23:07 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Two weeks ago, my grandmother passed away - the last grandparent I had left. As those of you with experience in dealing with deceased family members know, the funeral is only the start; the next part is taking care of the deceased's affairs, which includes going through all their belongings to determine what to do with them. I took care of my grandmother's extensive book collection, and while doing so, I hit something that fascinated me to no end: a six-volume Christian Encyclopaedia from 1956. In it, I found something I just had to share with OSNews.
Thread beginning with comment 521598
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that god exists. Non believers don't really have to prove anything since, by default, god doesn't exist, just like the flying spaghetti monster.

I find this argument very counter-scientific.

If you say God exists but provide no supporting evidence, I am scientifically entitled to be unconvinced.

If you say God does not exist, but provide no evidence, I am scientifically entitled to ignore you.

The burden of proof lies with anyone claiming specific knowledge. The default position should be neutrality (ie. we do not know).

While I agree with your points, they don't really contradict what Sodki wrote. "Non believer" doesn't automatically mean someone who holds a positive belief that God (or gods) doesn't exist; an active belief that something does/doesn't exist is not the same as an absence of belief that something does exist.

My impression is that Sodki was referring to the latter position - which would also be a position consistent with the null hypothesis: claims unaccompanied by evidence are assumed to be false.

Reply Parent Score: 2