padolsey/gist:434139

## gistfile1.txt
The default position is always to suspend judgement. Making an ontologically
positive assertion gives you the burden of proof.

Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

If I tell you that I can fly, you will quite rightly ask for proof. You'd find
it foolish of me to say "prove that I can't"...

(http://twitter.com/codylindley/status/15883726017) "Rejecting a claim still
carries a burden of proof on the reject-er" - If the claim is independent of
other controversial claims and is not ontologically positive then I might agree.
But first, the existence of a God, or, at least, the Christian God, requires
submission in other matters, such as the creation of the universe, the existence
of Jesus, the assertion of heaven and hell, the possibility that an entity that
is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent can actually exist etc.

If we're just talking about a generic theistic belief, then I'm afraid the
burden of proof still lies on the claimant. It would be logically flawed in
judgement if I was to claim that Thor or Apollo existed and then deny you any
proof - other than "I know they do".

--

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/03/atheists-nonbelief-video.html

Cody, that video you posted was interesting, but I felt it was centrally flawed
in that he is saying that Atheists "do" have a belief. This may be true for
some -- it would be foolish for me to deny that -- but most atheists I've
spoken to simply see it as a suspension of judgement, or rather a
intellectually honest form of agnosticism. I think that claiming there ISN'T a
God would be as foolish as claiming that there IS... why should anyone have
either stance? I am open to the possibility of some higher entity, possibly
one that can reside throughout the universe, but that doesn't mean I submit to
the man-made constructions of God to appease the void of knowledge that I have
about such a possible entity. Neither do I parade about trying to convince
others of this entity.

The reason Atheists are loud about it, and choose to write books and articles,
is because various religions around the world are impeding upon our freedoms
(our, as in, EVERYONE) simply because some figment of their mind has told them
that what we're doing might be wrong, oh and that we have no moral values etc...
I mean, really, do you need a commandment from an unknown higher power in order
for you to appreciate the ethical case for not killing someone?

What you believe in your own mind is obviously up to you... But what right do
you have to spread your beliefs as truths? ... and to create laws based on
your beliefs? (see Sharia law)

You have to understand that, I, at least, treat the proposition of a God,
equally to that of the boogie man, fairies, phantom energy, and even the
existence of other life in the universe. These are all simply claims, nothing
more. If I am to say one is true than I must be satisfied that I've received a
decent amount of proof, otherwise on what basis am I asserting such truths?

Do you have proof for God? I mean scientific proof - not some dream you had -
and not something about God saving a relative who would have surely died...
for such an occurrence could be attributed to any number of medical phenomenon.
I mean, do _you_ have proof?

If not, then you have no logical basis for believing in this God, nor should
you try and convince others of your belief with scary rhetoric and commandments.

====
EDIT
====

I have to say a couple more things about that video Cody posted.

He says:

"I agree that nobody has to give any evidence for their belief that there are
NO fairies under the house, and the reason is, that there is no reason to
believe that there might be some fairies, so simply a rejection of the idea
is completely appropriate"

Yet he claims that we can take no such position on God, simply because many
people believe in God.

This is a logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad populum". Just because many
people believe something doesn't mean it's true.

So, in other words, he says that it's okay for me to say that fairies don't
exist without having to provide proof of that, yet if I want to claim that
God doesn't exist, I must provide evidence.

You didn't require evidence to start believing in God, so why should you
need evidence to stop?

As Hitchens said:
    "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

Perhaps, his video is simply an attempt at rationalising his flawed claims.

---

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4633/18181940conventionallogml2.jpg
http://jgero.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ricky-gervais-on-being-an-atheist.jpg
	The default position is always to suspend judgement. Making an ontologically
	positive assertion gives you the burden of proof.

	Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

	If I tell you that I can fly, you will quite rightly ask for proof. You'd find
	it foolish of me to say "prove that I can't"...

	(http://twitter.com/codylindley/status/15883726017) "Rejecting a claim still
	carries a burden of proof on the reject-er" - If the claim is independent of
	other controversial claims and is not ontologically positive then I might agree.
	But first, the existence of a God, or, at least, the Christian God, requires
	submission in other matters, such as the creation of the universe, the existence
	of Jesus, the assertion of heaven and hell, the possibility that an entity that
	is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent can actually exist etc.

	If we're just talking about a generic theistic belief, then I'm afraid the
	burden of proof still lies on the claimant. It would be logically flawed in
	judgement if I was to claim that Thor or Apollo existed and then deny you any
	proof - other than "I know they do".

	--

	http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/03/atheists-nonbelief-video.html

	Cody, that video you posted was interesting, but I felt it was centrally flawed
	in that he is saying that Atheists "do" have a belief. This may be true for
	some -- it would be foolish for me to deny that -- but most atheists I've
	spoken to simply see it as a suspension of judgement, or rather a
	intellectually honest form of agnosticism. I think that claiming there ISN'T a
	God would be as foolish as claiming that there IS... why should anyone have
	either stance? I am open to the possibility of some higher entity, possibly
	one that can reside throughout the universe, but that doesn't mean I submit to
	the man-made constructions of God to appease the void of knowledge that I have
	about such a possible entity. Neither do I parade about trying to convince
	others of this entity.

	The reason Atheists are loud about it, and choose to write books and articles,
	is because various religions around the world are impeding upon our freedoms
	(our, as in, EVERYONE) simply because some figment of their mind has told them
	that what we're doing might be wrong, oh and that we have no moral values etc...
	I mean, really, do you need a commandment from an unknown higher power in order
	for you to appreciate the ethical case for not killing someone?

	What you believe in your own mind is obviously up to you... But what right do
	you have to spread your beliefs as truths? ... and to create laws based on
	your beliefs? (see Sharia law)

	You have to understand that, I, at least, treat the proposition of a God,
	equally to that of the boogie man, fairies, phantom energy, and even the
	existence of other life in the universe. These are all simply claims, nothing
	more. If I am to say one is true than I must be satisfied that I've received a
	decent amount of proof, otherwise on what basis am I asserting such truths?

	Do you have proof for God? I mean scientific proof - not some dream you had -
	and not something about God saving a relative who would have surely died...
	for such an occurrence could be attributed to any number of medical phenomenon.
	I mean, do _you_ have proof?

	If not, then you have no logical basis for believing in this God, nor should
	you try and convince others of your belief with scary rhetoric and commandments.

	====
	EDIT
	====

	I have to say a couple more things about that video Cody posted.

	He says:

	"I agree that nobody has to give any evidence for their belief that there are
	NO fairies under the house, and the reason is, that there is no reason to
	believe that there might be some fairies, so simply a rejection of the idea
	is completely appropriate"

	Yet he claims that we can take no such position on God, simply because many
	people believe in God.

	This is a logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad populum". Just because many
	people believe something doesn't mean it's true.

	So, in other words, he says that it's okay for me to say that fairies don't
	exist without having to provide proof of that, yet if I want to claim that
	God doesn't exist, I must provide evidence.

	You didn't require evidence to start believing in God, so why should you
	need evidence to stop?

	As Hitchens said:
	"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

	Perhaps, his video is simply an attempt at rationalising his flawed claims.

	---

	http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4633/18181940conventionallogml2.jpg
	http://jgero.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ricky-gervais-on-being-an-atheist.jpg