Religious people on the reasonable faith forum are so fucking stupid...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I actually think that defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is silly. In terms of content, "lacking belief" is really just disbelief. However, when atheists phrase it that way, it gives a clear impression that atheists are actively trying to avoid any possible burden of proof. After all, why go out of one's way to define a position such that one does not have supposedly have to defend holding it? Worse, "lack of belief" can only really reasonably apply to those who haven't heard of god concepts before, or have been newly introduced to them. However, once one has been introduced to said concepts one either has good reasons for their resulting position or they do not. At that point, claiming you don't have the burden of proof is a complete non sequitur.

Except I've always lacked a belief in any sort of deity since day 1.

Lack of belief and disbelief can go hand in hand. I don't disbelieve in all god claims because there's no way for me to make a value judgement on all god claims that I haven't heard. However, I can reject and soundly disbelieve a claim as it is presented to me.

And even then, the idea that when presented with a claim one must chose 'either, or' is a silly assumption that needs to be challenged.

[MindForgedManacle]

Except I've always lacked a belief in any sort of deity since day 1.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Lack of belief and disbelief can go hand in hand. I don't disbelieve in all god claims because there's no way for me to make a value judgement on all god claims that I haven't heard. However, I can reject and soundly disbelieve a claim as it is presented to me.

You might have misunderstood what I said. When I say that "lacking belief" is no different than disbelief, I'm saying they mean the same thing. That is, they both mean "do not believe".
God claims you haven't heard aren't really a problem. You have no reason to believe them; that is a reason not to believe them.

And even then, the idea that when presented with a claim one must chose 'either, or' is a silly assumption that needs to be challenged.

One does choose to believe or not to believe. What is important is one's reasons for what you do believe.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Except I've always lacked a belief in any sort of deity since day 1.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

It 100% does if you don't subscribe to the notion that lack of belief = disbelief in every case.

Lack of belief and disbelief can go hand in hand. I don't disbelieve in all god claims because there's no way for me to make a value judgement on all god claims that I haven't heard. However, I can reject and soundly disbelieve a claim as it is presented to me.

You might have misunderstood what I said. When I say that "lacking belief" is no different than disbelief, I'm saying they mean the same thing. That is, they both mean "do not believe".
God claims you haven't heard aren't really a problem. You have no reason to believe them; that is a reason not to believe them.

And even then, the idea that when presented with a claim one must chose 'either, or' is a silly assumption that needs to be challenged.

One does choose to believe or not to believe. What is important is one's reasons for what you do believe.

Those are fair points, and I'm too tired to go over and over this definition of atheism debate which always raises its fucking head every time and has been done to death.

Needless to say, I follow qualiasoup's demolishing of the notion that one must choose 'either or' when presented with a positive claim. I can't really be bothered (nor am I am able) to present the argument to the same concise format that he does.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Reasonable faith is a veritable contradiction in terms. Therefore, it does not surprise me that unreasonable people would post ill logic under the false guise of truth, love, and knowledge.

Outstanding point. If they could reason, they wouldn't need faith.

Boru

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's just an unwillingness to suspend disbelief. Like the guy in the back of a movie theatre yelling "Oh come on, they haven't reloaded once!" or "an explosion that size would kill you!"

Ridiculous and annoying when you're deliberately trying to engage in a fantasy story, but that's the only time not being willing to suspend disbelief is silly.

There's also the cultural indoctrination. Look at enough other religions, even outdated ones (Roman and Norse pantheons) and the same claims are made in different ways. No one believes them any more because they seem silly.

The more you learn about world religions, the more it becomes apparent the amount of irrational things one has to accept, "take on faith" or indulge in fantasy to accept it as true.

[Losty]

See, saw, have seen. Please, I can't take it. It hurts my heart. :'(

[Minimalist]

There are some very intelligent religious people out there

By definition, religious people have to believe in fairy tales. It is hard to reconcile the two ideas.