A null hypothesis in Bayesian terms is a theory with a high prior probability due to minimal complexity.

I'm not sure it's so clear cut.

They key point is that when you do the p value test you are determining p(data | null_hyp). This is certainly useful to calculate, but doesn't tell you the whole story about whether your data support any particular non-null hypotheses.

Chapter 17 of E.T. Jaynes' book provides a lively discussion of the limitations of traditional hypothesis testing, and is accessible enough that you can dive into it without having worked through the rest of the book.

The Cohen article cited below is nice but it's important to note it doesn't completely reject the use of null hypotheses or p-values:

.. null hypothesis testing complete with power analysis can be useful if we abandon the rejection of point nil hypotheses and use instead "good-enough" range null hypotheses

I think it's funny that the observation that it's "non-Bayesian" is being treated here as a refutation, and got voted up. Not terribly surprising though.

"But atheism isn't actually the default."

Well... yes, it is. I do not know of any theistic infants. Actually, I'm not aware that infants have any beliefs as such.

Young children seem predisposed to attribute things to powerful but non-present entities, but I'm fairly certain there are logical fallacies involved.

The fact that many people accept certain concepts as given without questioning them thoroughly - or at all - does not constitute a justification for believing those things. I have often heard the claim that philosophy does not attempt to examine premises but only to project and study the consequences of the premises people bring to it; I consider that to be one of the reasons why 'philosophy' is without merit.

I like that motto a lot. Another one that bears on this is Postel's Law: "Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others."

In the case of wanting to deemphasize politeness, this would suggest being more lenient in the amount of rudeness you allow from others, but not increasing it in your output. Sort of the principle behind Crocker's Rules.

The most commonly-used definitions of sanity are not only incorrect but insane.

How can a definition be incorrect?

If you find the common usage incoherent or otherwise not useful, don't use it. To do otherwise is to lie.

Sorry, I deleted my comment because two other people basically said the same thing. I was hoping to get it out before you responded. My bad.

I am not necessarily saying I would rather you post a huge wall of text. Personally, I would just link to a good summary of the material and say, "This has been covered before."

Another way to respond would be to play coy and ask for more details. This, at the very least, encourages more dialogue.

Another solution is to just not respond at all.

None of these are particularly fun, but I like to think you can at least avoid the negative response from the community.