Only if you base your belief system out of science, which we've already pointed out is not a necessary standard (especially since you yourself do not base all of your beliefs in science).

Assuming nonexistence is also taking a stance and holding a belief, and it is a belief about which you are clearly fervent. If this were an experiment with a drug, the null hypothesis would be inconclusive or no effect, and the hypothesis would seek a positive or negative correlation. You have taken a negative correlation (no existence) and vitriolically made it a conclusive statement by way of the "null" hypothesis. That's bad science. Your null hypothesis should be no impact (or no statement on God's existence or nonexistence). It's also worth noting that if a study comes back in favor the null, it comes back as "failed to reject the null hypothesis," not as "evidence for the acceptance of the null hypothesis." Even if "no God" is the null, lack of evidence simply fails to reject it, it does not support it as the alternative.

I believe in God because I live in a Christian family, although I believe in evolution. I don't understand why God couldn't have created the big bang, then watched what spilled out, or maybe once he got bored he gave a little bit of help. I'll believe in the "the world is 6000 years old" thing when somebody finds a dinosaur bone with God's signature on it.

Why would God sign a bone?

Yes. Why?

I'm pretty sure that's the point they're trying to make.

No, really? Never would have guessed.

I don't understand...

They're saying they're open to the idea that God could have influenced the big bang, but don't believe the earth is 6000 years old.

I get that much. I don't understand the last few posts regarding bone signing.

I was being goofy.

Where does the 6000 yrs old theory come from?

It's roughly how old hardcore Christians say the earth is.

You mean Young Earth Creationists (YECs). I don't like your usage of the phrase "hardcore Christian" because it seems to imply either that OECs are less fervent than YECs or that YECs are extremist.

I'm sure. What if I said the people that ignore science instead?

Don't troll.

Young Earth Creationists do ignore science.

YECs reject the scientific consensus regarding a couple specific fields of science. "YECs ignore science" is trolling, Gray.

A number of them blatantly do. In at least one Atheist Experience video, the theory of gravity was refuted, Someone asked why people on Antarctica don't fall off the bottom of the Earth, and many have actively denied accepted, proven, scientific principles. I call that ignoring science.

One cannot accurately describe the entirety of a group based on the words, actions, beliefs, etc. of a few people who belong to that group.

In three different instances, a white person murdered another human being. Therefore, all white people are murderers.

And really, how could one ever claim that another "rejects science"? To begin with, science is a process/method for a means of discovery. But regardless of definition, to say that one rejects all scientific principles is rather rediculous.

Science has proven that I need oxygen to live. If I am a YEC, does that mean I don't believe that I need oxygen?

Fine, YECs reject the scientific method as viable for determining the history and development of life and the universe, as well as refuting the validity of the scientists who perpetuate this information.

Okay then. Some YECs ignore much of science. It's still not a fair characterization. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are YEC, and I can assure you, there are some very well informed and intelligent people who believe the earth is 6000 years old. Just because someone erroneously rejects certain facts for ideological reasons doesn't mean they reject science.

Edit: I started writing this two posts ago. Sorry for the delay.

Then how can they reject evidence procured and proved through the scientific method? It baffles me a little bit to say "they don't reject science," and simultaneously say "for ideological reasons, they believe the world is 6000 years old." Almost ever faculty of science can disprove that claim. A philologist alone could disprove it.

Because an individual rejects one thing determined by science, they must inherently reject all of science?

So you can say "I reject evidence based on radioactive decay" and then simultaneously accept radioactive decay as fact? "I reject evidence based on philology and archeology, but some archeology is cool and languages sure do develop." I think it undermines the core of science, which is that if it's not all applicable and all encompassing, it cannot be considered factual.

It's not that they reject the scientific method; it's that they reject specific findings. There is a big difference. Consider these three possibilities for reconciling YEC and conflicting scientific accounts: YEC is wrong, science is invalid, or scientists have made incorrect conclusions about the age and nature of the universe through misapplication of the scientific method. I took the first position, but which of the remaining options is more reasonable? Obviously it's the third, and that's the position all of my YEC friends take.