Lucy Goosey

[Super Cyborg]

Well this thread is much more civil then I expected. I thought it was going to get to WGDF levels of bad, but I was pleasantly surprised. I want to take part of the discussion, but I feel that it might be best not to, but I'll leave something up to add at least, despite the fact it would be best not to. The following is stuff from only my experiences, and it's my personal beliefs as well. I don't want to get into an argument over the stuff.

I minus well come out and say the big stuff right away, that way you can decide if you want to keep reading this, but this is probably hanging myself only a week after joining this site. I partly belong to the group of Christians you hate, mainly that I believe in creationism, and I think Gay marriage is wrong. PLEASE, hear me out before you start hating me. That is my personal belief, but I still believe that Gay marriage should be legalized, and that evolution stay's in Science class, and that if creationism is talked about, it is talked about in a religious studies class. I believe everybody should be treated equal, and that people should believe what they want to, as long as they aren't actively harming people. The reason I think Gay marriage should be legalized, despite my beliefs, is that married people get legal benefits, and that by not allowing them to be legally recognized, we are taking away their rights that the government should provide. As far as the creationism part goes, I know a lot about evolution, and see all the good reasons, but I have my reasons that I won't get into. You can make fun of me, you can berate me, but these are my beliefs and it won't change. It felt good to get that out of the way, so I will go on with the rest of my stuff, if you feel the need to keep reading after this part.

I have friends of various beliefs, from agnostic, to atheist, to combinations of things. Our politics also range quite a bit, but we all manage to get along. How? Because we are reasonable people that while some may consider what we believe to be stupid, we can respect each other, and we don't try to force our beliefs on each other. I've lived in Texas all my life, and most of my fellow Christians who believe what I do don't care about most of the stuff. Also, which might surprise some people, we don't go around preaching to everyone and telling them they are going to hell. We are rational people, and it does tick us off to a certain degree when other people tell us we are stupid for believing what we do, despite not being in peoples faces about it. This is usually more from personalities that are berating the hard core Christians, like Westboro Baptist, but when people are grouping us with them, it gets annoying, kind of like when Atheists get annoyed for being grouped with the extreme ones. Mainly what I am trying to say, is that despite what some think, a lot of Christians, and other people from other religions, are reasonable people.

As far as Atheists go, as I mentioned in another post, all the ones I met are nice people, and the most we will say when it's brought up, if at all, is why we believe what we do, then go on to other topics. There are those that are more outspoken against religion, and while they have that right, I don't like that some will berate others for having a certain belief.

I apologize if my post seems preachy, and I know I'm bringing pain upon myself by admitting some of these things, but I feel it's necessary so people can know that not everyone with these types of beliefs are dicks like some groups. I don't want to talk about why I believe certain things, and I don't want to get into arguments, I just want to make that one point. I have laid out what I thought, so know people can decide if they want to take anything I have to post seriously again.

 

[Abnaxis]

A few thoughts on this thread...

First, to the "as long as you don't bug me, I won't bug you" crowd...it all sounds well and good to lambast atheists who will snark at Christians, and the Christians who will tell an atheist that they will burn in hell. However, I feel like it is important to note that the snark isn't just about an uppity asshole tossing potshots at people who aren't like them.

There a thing in social psychology, called the Bogardus Social Distance Scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogardus_social_distance_scale]. It's a measure--one of many--basically of how acceptable an individual finds a particular subgroup within their community. On this scale, and every other measure like it, atheists consistently rank dead last by a sizable margin, in terms of how accepting the populace is of them. The only time I have known of when this was not the case (in the US, at least) was for about six months after 9/11, when muslims very briefly fell more out of favor when compared with atheists.


That's not to say that all theists are jerks who hate atheist, but that the sentiment is very much out there, and not just in internet flame wars and evangelical chruches. There is very little people will consistently agree on regarding spiritualism, but if there's one place where members of many different religion can see eye to eye, it's that they don't like atheists. An acquaintance once told me, in exact words, "No, you can't be an atheist. Atheists are all assholes." And they weren't a Christian, but a follower in (I guess?) some flavor of pagan religion.

To me, the snark you often see is parallel to the all-to-familiar-in-gamer-circles snark you (used to? I think people are more accepting these days?) see from socially-outcast nerds. When you have enough people telling you that you are a horrible person and rejecting you based on a label, snark is a natural response. Not a good response, mind, because it catches a lot of people who don't deserve ire in the vitriol, but still natural.

Second, to the "truth versus fact" stuff from RoonMan: I think I understand the point being made when you try to draw a distinction between truth arrived at through allegory and truth arrived at through scientific investigation. However, I do not think the distinction is as hard and fast as you make it. The fact is, science is only built around the "facts" that we have dilligently tried to disprove, but never can. The laws of thermodynamics are only "laws" because they give us the right answer every time we try to apply them, not because of some immutable power of science. And even at that, every measurement has error, every hypothesis has a non-zero probably of being disproven, even if we were somehow able to gather all of the information in the universe to make our prediction. Quantum mechanics sees to that.

What I'm trying to get at, is that both religion and science are, in essence, the practice of determining what we think is the most likely truth based on the assumptions we live with. The only difference is that in science, I can assign a number to how certain I am--which incidentally, could be completely wrong if my base assumptions are off (see also, origin of quantum physics).

Finally, for my own personal take, I am atheist not because there is no evidence of a higher power, but to my mind there is overwhelming evidence against it. Specifically, in all of my experience, and in all of my learning, I have yet to encounter a thing that operates completely outside of the laws of causality. I would not say that we have reached a point where those laws--and the extent to which we can leverage them for progress--is fully understood, by a long shot, but even the deepest, most perplexing mysteries in the universe occur because some set of circumstances made them happen, which could be quantified and repeated if we just knew more about the system. Given this, even if a higher being somehow does exist, why should I pledge fealty to it? It is bound by the same laws of physics as I am, and there is no reason why I can't be just as omnipotent and omnipresent as He is, with more understanding. Theism presupposes separate planes of existence: the first for the deity, whose grace can never be approached by the likes of the mortals on the second lower plane. I see no reason why humans should be so limited.

I bring this up, because so far, wherever I have see a "all atheists are in one of these camps" or "atheists believe this," I have yet to see my actual views represented in the generalizations being made. Please realize that atheism is not a religion, any more than monotheism or polytheism is a religion. I mean, many denominations of Buddhists are atheistic, but I'm sure they weren't considered when you laid out your view on what you think atheism is. You are pidgeonholing a lot of people into very narrow boxes when you do that.

 

[Super Cyborg]

Snip

Good stuff, and I never realized that about Atheists, it always seemed more something to do with the vocal minority of Christians, which with the size of it still comes out as a high number. I guess that a lot of people, including me to a degree, are very attached to our faith and beliefs, and that lots of people will associate an entire group based on a few people who can match one description, which in this case is Atheism. People need to realize that the lowest subgroups should be jerks.

I always hate people being generalized into a group, whether about religions, politics, sex, sexuality, race, etc. That's why I made that poorly composed rant of mine earlier. I respect your reasoning, and I hope you don't get a lot of flak for it, because that is something that should not be done.

 

[AtomChicken]

@Abnaxis: You summed up the importance of individuality greatly - not all Atheists are arses XD.

I just find it funny and pathetic the loud-mouthed Atheists got worked up about "another" biblical movie, when their own "field" is just fragmented, fool-ridden and stupid as the theists they so often try to paint as being morons. In the end, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

As for the New Atheists? I'll take any time needed to knock them and their ilk down a peg, to smash their Scarlet A's and to cover their "sacred" Scientism and whitewash it like the Iconoclasts of old. They are not Atheism, they are not brights, and never will be an answer to solve the Atheist riddle. If you want "hard" Atheism, go Sartre, and give Nihilism a hoot.

 

[mtarzaim02]

What I'm trying to get at, is that both religion and science are, in essence, the practice of determining what we think is the most likely truth based on the assumptions we live with.

I'm perfectly fine with your post up to that point.
Religion is just an old way to explain the world, to predict it and to use those predictions at our advantage.
That's why most of religions are similar in their myths and stories. We both live on the same planet, with the same sun going through the same sky for 12 month and doing it again.
Tales of birth and ressurections are only an ancien way to explain how the sun does its cycle, and why (not how, WHY) he does it. Humans needed reasons for this apparent order, and only religion was available at that time.

But here's the something I'm less fine about:

Given this, even if a higher being somehow does exist, why should I pledge fealty to it? It is bound by the same laws of physics as I am, and there is no reason why I can't be just as omnipotent and omnipresent as He is, with more understanding

It won't work as an argument against deity, because you're presupposing this god is part of the universe he created.
As implied in religions, he existed before the universe. Meaning he exists in a "void", devoid of any dimension.
So he is everywhere (since there's not space dimensions) and he's omniscient (since there's no time dimension, everything is simultaneous to him, the far future as the far past). With omniscience comes omnipotence, so he's omnipotent too.
Conclusion: a god outside our universe would have mostly all the features described in, say, the bible.
Human on the other hand is constrainted by his universe. His brain and concepts are heavily modeled by his immediate surroundings, meaning no quantum physics for him or 11 dimensions' multiuniverses. Physically, we cannot expect (as we currently are) to achieve a god status. We would need machinery to get it for us.

In my opinion, if you need a reason to refute the existence of a god, your current posture (if I understood it well) isn't enough. Science is powerful enough to find a "rational" justification to this kind of god. That's why I prefer to refute the existence of god as a merciful creature, caring for our well-being. Because for this, I have plenty of evidences against, bringing all the claims of any religion to the ground.

That and the inability of any religion to prove the claims they're making about an afterlife, for the last 100 000 years.

Please realize that atheism is not a religion, any more than monotheism or polytheism is a religion.

This point is important, because it's usually the argument we get: "you are as religious as I am, hypocrit!".
Atheism cannot be a religion, since any religion is based on faith, while atheism is based on doubt.
A theist will always believe, no what matter the evidence against it.
An atheist will reasset his system of thinking, at the first proper evidence against his view of the world.
Atheism is a versatile process of finding the truth, adapting itself to the world and building ideals from it.
Theism is a process of keeping old traditions alive, bending the truths of the world to its made-up ideals.

The core of atheism is here: how do I decide what's the best thought process to make decision on a daily basis?
A process that can correct itself every second?
Or a process of circular thinking?

I mean, many denominations of Buddhists are atheistic.

They claim there's an after-life.
Even if there's no god for them, they're still pretending to know something they absolutely don't, forcing people to follow madeup rules for a benefit they have no way to prove (without using sociology or biology).

Plus, the consequences of their samsara thing is dangerous: you cannot force people to "get out of the reincarnation circle" if they know their next lifes will be better than the current one. You need to convince them they will be better when dissolved into the great nothing.
For that, you need a world getting shittier and shittier for certain. So no matter what their reincarnations will be, they will be sure to fall into a worse situation they currently are. Meaning as many disasters as possible, so people will join you in your wheel obsession.
Basically, buddhism is against ecology and progress, because it needs an upcoming apocalypse to convince people to follow its teaching in their current life. Another trait common to all religions I know about.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY

KAVINSKY!

huh?....oh right...right on!


[quote/]Yeah, lol Atheism, right? It's true that the entire... group(?) has been kind of reduced to snark and sarcastic quips at religious groups.

if you count r/atheism as the "group"...its like listening to NIN's "Heresay" while masturbating furiously[/quote]

Quite a vivid image you have there >.>

I wonder how you procured such detail <.<

 

[Zipa]

Religion is no longer a major force in the secular, Western world, so there's not much for atheists to argue or fight about. Hence, a large proportion of the arguing is from those who can't see the silliness of shooting fish in a barrel.

It is in the United States, especially in some parts of the South, and it can get pretty damn frustrating at times let me tell you that.

OT: Eh...I don't know. I barely define as Catholic anymore, I'm more agnostic, but this joke...I'm just gonna say it isn't that funny and leave it at that.

It is very much a major force in the USA when there are some states that exclude Atheists from being an electable candidate.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

Or when there are illegal kidnappings going of youths in America and subjecting them to child abuse and what is basically brainwashing.

 

[Super Cyborg]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

The Christian Religion, and every branch of the Christian Religion, is about NOT getting along with people. Can you really blame us? In the same way I highly doubt there was ever Athiest being mean to Shinto, a very inclusive and peaceful religion.

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of people saying otherwise, but this seems like you are generalizing everything. I will not deny about the history of the religion, and that there are people and sections of the religion that spreads hate, but there are lots of sections and people that are good and actually do get along with others. I'm not going to argue with you past that. If you've experienced the exact opposite, then I apologize, since that is something that should not be happening.

 

[Super Cyborg]

And to that statement, I use my other often used statement.

There was Nazi's who were generally nice people and kind to most people they met. Doesn't make Nazi's as a whole a good thing, and they would probably be nice people without the Nazi'ing as well.

Well, I guess I'm basically a Nazi.

Look, I can take whatever insults people want to at me, but to condemn millions of people based on past atrocities, or a small percentage of them today that like to spread hate (such as Westboro), but to say that there are millions upon millions that are basically Nazi's really pisses me off. Even those that are actively denying Gay marriage are not going around and killing them, imprisoning them, and causing mass genocide. Yes, there are still people who use the Bible as an excuse to do horrible things, but horrible people will use any excuse. In a way you are basically saying my father is spreading ideas of killing people and depriving them of basic human rights, just because he's a pastor for a Christian church.

I don't know what has happened in your life, but no matter what it is, there is no reason for someone to condemn an entire religion based on the past, or even the present of some of the stuff some do. I know this probably won't change your mind, it might even make you say worse things, but going to the Nazi analogy is really pushing things. If you take anything from this, please don't throw everyone under one label, even if you consider people that are part of said group to be like Nazi's. You can say whatever terrible things you want to me personally if it makes you feel better.

 

[House_Vet]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

The Christian Religion, and every branch of the Christian Religion, is about NOT getting along with people. Can you really blame us? In the same way I highly doubt there was ever Athiest being mean to Shinto, a very inclusive and peaceful religion.

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of people saying otherwise, but this seems like you are generalizing everything. I will not deny about the history of the religion, and that there are people and sections of the religion that spreads hate, but there are lots of sections and people that are good and actually do get along with others. I'm not going to argue with you past that. If you've experienced the exact opposite, then I apologize, since that is something that should not be happening.

And to that statement, I use my other often used statement.

There was Nazi's who were generally nice people and kind to most people they met. Doesn't make Nazi's as a whole a good thing, and they would probably be nice people without the Nazi'ing as well.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, you do realise that by dropping a supposed Nazi parallel into an astoundingly diverse group of people, (some good, some less good, most just getting by) you are deliberately going after an emotional or hostile response - or trolling, to put it another way.

If you feel that a world without religion would be a less evil place, I understand, based on past evidence, but have to disagree. Religion has simply been a point at which less moral people can rally support based on fear or anger, relying on the faith of the devoted, and subverting that faith to their own ends.

There will always be war, greed, famine, exclusion etc. That's the human condition, and no amount of 'well if they just gave up these outmoded ideas' will reduce it. So I will try to reduce suffering in the world my way, (education, medicine and public health and the application of 'Love thy neighbour' without labelling it as such) and you do it yours - I just hope you have something to believe in to carry you through.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sure, people *****, but pretty much everything I've heard about Lucy is prefaced with that 10%-of-the-brain thing, to the point where it's just annoying. And from what I've heard from people who weren't thrilled to have found something that makes them feel smugly superior, it's actually a good movie, so I'm extra annoyed at the prospect of a good film being shoved aside for a minor issue...

Again, you're not describing anything that doesn't happen to other franchises.

Better beee...

AGNOSTICLAW!

So is Angnosticlaw one you can enter freely from the other houses, as it doesn't really address belief, or is it just the "atheists who don't want to be called atheists" house?

I'm just wondering if I want to end up there.

 

[Something Amyss]

Look, I can take whatever insults people want to at me, but to condemn millions of people based on past atrocities, or a small percentage of them today that like to spread hate (such as Westboro), but to say that there are millions upon millions that are basically Nazi's really pisses me off.

You can say "small minority!" all you want, but when close to half the country agrees with WBC on homosexuality, predominantly on religious grounds (the part they disagree with isn't "God hates fags," after all, it's the way WBC protests our sacrosanct soldiers' funerals), the idea that it's a small percentage of the base is complete trash.

At best, you can say #notallreligiouspeople, but that doesn't make it a small fraction.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, you do realise that by dropping a supposed Nazi parallel into an astoundingly diverse group of people, (some good, some less good, most just getting by) you are deliberately going after an emotional or hostile response

And besides, what does the concept of millions of people who undertook horrific actions under the banner of a religious institution, largely targeting other religious groups and spurred on by a man who thought he was protected by God Herself have to do with religion? They're so unrelated, it must be specifically to garner an emotional response.

There will always be war, greed, famine, exclusion etc. That's the human condition, and no amount of 'well if they just gave up these outmoded ideas' will reduce it. So I will try to reduce suffering in the world my way, (education, medicine and public health and the application of 'Love thy neighbour' without labelling it as such) and you do it yours - I just hope you have something to believe in to carry you through.

If it is, in fact, the human condition, then your method won't reduce it, either. It's weird. It's part of the human condition and changing people's mind sets away from believing in angry bronze age genies who hate gays and pork but love slavery and genocide won't change that, but...your method will?

I mean, it seems completely contradictory to go "human condition!" and then insist you're out to change it. That at least borders on special pleading.

At the same time, secular societies tend to have higher quality of life, so one has to wonder if reduction of religious beliefs might actually, in fact, reduce suffering. Even if correlation doesn't equal causation, it does make the Bible (and other books, but I'm looking at you, Psalm 13) wrong.

Or, to put the question directly to you: Why do the most religious parts of the world tend to correlate to more poverty, more hunger, more violent crime? Yes, yes, I know that correlation doesn't mean causation, but if you're going to tell people that reduction in religious beliefs won't reduce these issues, then you should be able to offer a reason why it looks like the exact opposite in reality.

 

[Erttheking]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

The Christian Religion, and every branch of the Christian Religion, is about NOT getting along with people. Can you really blame us? In the same way I highly doubt there was ever Athiest being mean to Shinto, a very inclusive and peaceful religion.

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of people saying otherwise, but this seems like you are generalizing everything. I will not deny about the history of the religion, and that there are people and sections of the religion that spreads hate, but there are lots of sections and people that are good and actually do get along with others. I'm not going to argue with you past that. If you've experienced the exact opposite, then I apologize, since that is something that should not be happening.

And to that statement, I use my other often used statement.

There was Nazi's who were generally nice people and kind to most people they met. Doesn't make Nazi's as a whole a good thing, and they would probably be nice people without the Nazi'ing as well.

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Whoracle]

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

While the way it was formulated was unlucky, that's not what he said. He did not say "Christians are Nazis", he (badly) said "The same measurements apply". It's called "highlighting the parallels", not "comparing". And for what it's worth, the same would apply to atheists, too, if they ever start the same shit that the big institutionalized religions do and did.

 

[Kuredan]

You can say "small minority!" all you want, but when close to half the country agrees with WBC on homosexuality, predominantly on religious grounds (the part they disagree with isn't "God hates fags," after all, it's the way WBC protests our sacrosanct soldiers' funerals), the idea that it's a small percentage of the base is complete trash.

[Citation Needed]



There are plenty of Christian denominations that either take a hands off approach to gay marriage or openly supports them. Most recently (Jun 2014), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to allow its pastors to officiate same sex marriages. They join the Evangelical Church of America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country), the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists, not to mention the two largest Jewish sects, Reform and Conservative who all support gay marriage. That may not be the case for the million and one Baptist churches or some of the more evangelical churches, but claim that "close to half" share the extremist views of the Westboro Baptist Church is incredibly inaccurate. I understand that religion has hurt people past and present, but when you lump everyone of faith in the same boat, it's no different than the thought processes used to justify racism and sexism: "Well they're all just like that."

 

[Windcaler]

0 Points.

Why? Because no comedic value can be given to a message that demonizes an entire culture of people. Besides the joke wasnt all that great to begin with.

Critical miss does this kind of thing a lot. Usually its just jumping on the bandwagon that other pundits in the games industry (like Totalbiscuit or Jim sterling) make a point of while not adding anything of value to the actual discussion that hasnt already been said by other people. Then we have the anti-religious side (I would use another word which means someone who is utterly intolerant of a different belief but I dont think I can use the actual word without a warning) of the comic that has in every case I can recall lied or misrepresented how most actual religious people behave in order to demonize a culture. At the end of the day I see it as nothing more then a message of segregation and hate because there has been no instance where Grey and Cory have targeted idealogy or philosophy. Its always personal attacks against people within that culture and its sad.

Its sad to see two people in a position of privilege preaching to their choir about the segregation of cultures instead of using their voice to bring people together to get along and work out our differences. Its sad to see a message of hatred gobbled up by so many within the escapist community. Finally its sad that my plea for some thought toward this kind of speech will fall on deaf ears.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

That tag, though. Damn. And a little late to the party to hate on Noah, aren't we? I mean, it was hardly good, terribly paced, and kinda awkward outside of that really beautiful creation sequence, but still. I guess it's not too late to get some kicks in while it's still down.

 

[Erttheking]

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

While the way it was formulated was unlucky, that's not what he said. He did not say "Christians are Nazis", he (badly) said "The same measurements apply". It's called "highlighting the parallels", not "comparing". And for what it's worth, the same would apply to atheists, too, if they ever start the same shit that the big institutionalized religions do and did.

I would just like to say to you that you are the only person who actually read my comment, as I never at any point, said the Christians are as bad as the Nazis, which would be an incredibly absurd thing to say.

In that case I'm not sure you read my comment either. I didn't say you called Christians Nazis. I said you compared them. Which you did. And is still pretty damn bad.

 

[Draconalis]

Religion is no longer a major force in the secular, Western world, so there's not much for atheists to argue or fight about. Hence, a large proportion of the arguing is from those who can't see the silliness of shooting fish in a barrel.

Wait... what?!

Our leaders are still voted for and supported, based on which imaginary being they praise.

There are still states that don't let you run for office, unless you believe in some form of imaginary being.

Laws are still being debated and made, based on rules and writings made 2000 years ago, despite their ignorance.

(citation: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/u-s-senator-god-says-that-there-cant-be-global-warming/ )

I've personally seen the video of him saying such, but Was a tad too lazy to find it given I have to get ready for work in 4 minutes.


Atheists are vocal because our government forces use to live a backwards way, due to their religious beliefs.

Gay rights
Abortion
Mandatory religious education in public schools.

And the list goes on.


So, no sir... there is still MUCH for atheists to fight for.

 

[Lightknight]

A group that believes (has faith in) in a negative that has not been proven being snarky at a group believing (having faith) in a positive that has not been proven.

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, for a negative claim cannot be positively proven.

i.e. "you can't prove it isn't so" isn't a thing

but "I can prove it is so" is.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You're quite right that any belief has the onus of producing the facts but disbelief (belief in a negative) is every bit a stance as belief. In the absence of information, "I don't know" is the only appropriate default to take. You can follow that up with the likelihood that something is true or not but expressing certainty in the face of ignorance (lack of facts, not the personality trait) is just faith. I'll posit that belief only generally has that onus because negatives are impossible to prove whereas positives should be possible even if extremely difficult. If both were equally provable then the onus would just lie on whomever made the claim in the first place. But atheists are forced to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as a specific God that does not directly interact with creation.

Example given: You and your friend stand in front of an electric fence that may or may not be on. You don't try to lick the fence just because your friend claims it's on and there's no evidence to support his claim so you default to disbelief. You should just remain in a state of uncertainty. In this particular scenario it'd be safer to treat the fence as though it's on rather than not but that's particular to the analogy itself rather than the broader subject of a creator that we're talking about.

Look, an Atheist must accept one of two situations for existence. That the Universe (that point of matter and energy which exploded into everything) poofed into existence out of nothing and/or that the universe has existed infinitely into the past (turtles all the way down) with no cause or beginning. One of these or uncertainty between the two must be adhered to because any cause would be the creator. Whether sentient or process (such as our universe being the output of a massive black hole in another universe or something) it doesn't really matter.

What atheists are generally balking against when they cry havok at theism is the notion of a specific deity rather than the notion of an unknown creator that may or may not still be around. They think that the ridiculousness of say, Allah, means that "of course there isn't a God". But in reality, the general question of a creator is far different from the specific question of the specific qualities of a creator. I hold that a creator in general is extremely likely but that the ability to know anything about the being aside from that they created the Universe is impossible without direct interaction (which, i don't know about you, but I certainly haven't experienced). So I fully believe that any specific faith/religion can only be arrived at via faith whereas belief in a general creator likely at least having existed long enough to create the universe may be arrived at rationally.

Look at humans, we're creating miniature universes all the time like it's our job. Because it is some of our jobs (aka, video game developers). All these "universes" like No Many's Sky with specific rules and physics built in. It would be silly to think that given enough technology and expertise that we wouldn't eventually create a universe as involved as our own. God, if He/She/They exists are merely beings with the technology (power) and expertise to create this kind of environment. They don't have to be immortal or all knowing or anything that any specific religion adheres to. They can be some guy named Ted playing on a laptop while waiting for whatever kind of public transit exists in his universe. Or, it can be a being of immense power and intelligence with the ability to naturally create these things like I create bad smelling gas from my anus. I find existence from something to be far more likely than existence from nothing. I base this on every instance of causality I have ever witnessed and the lack of non-causal events in any experiment ever performed (save quantum mechanics which purports to have randomness but even this is likely a lack of knowledge in a budding field and doesn't necessarily have implications elsewhere). Sorry, but I believe I fall on the side of reason here no matter how counter-intuitive the notion of a creator and science has become. When looking at it on face value and ignoring societal pressures of our respective groups, if we don't assume that a creator is necessarily magic, there is no reason beings of sufficient ability wouldn't create universes nor is it difficult to believe that we are currently on a trajectory to be able to do similar things ourselves albeit far diminished until significant technological advances in our future are accomplished. That we are already able to make basic universes with basic principles is reason enough in itself to begin to suspect that our own universe could plausibly be a creation. Not that our universe is digital or anything. But just created.