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

[Freedom of thought]

I was looking through the forum when I seen this pile of bumbling stupidity:

I am pretty sure that "don't believe" and "lack of belief" is the same thing. However, as a theist, I usually want to know their position better. I for example can say that I 'lack the belief that no god exists' and that is true because I do not have that belief. I have the belief that God does exist.
So usually I ask the non-believer's (I know secularists hate that word since it destroys your attempts to redefine atheism) position. Usually they will evade or say they are completely neutral (while at the same time saying that belief in God is stupid). After 30 comments, they will admit that they believe that God does not exist. I just don't see any reason to evade like that. The only reason I can think of is that their position is so WEAK that they have to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to fight against theism.

Here is the link to the post in the thread

This is the biggest pile of horse shit I've read in a long time, and this isn't the only one, there's countless threads with morons like this guy with a blatant misunderstanding of the burden of proof. I guess that's what happens when they follow a disingenuous debater who constantly tries to shift the burden of proof. I really hope these people don't get employed as judges, because they'll charge innocent people with being guilty, because they couldn't prove they are NOT guilty. In court systems, EVERYONE is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. The burden of proof is that way for a reason, otherwise innocent people would be charged with offenses they never committed, because the judge has no understanding of the burden of proof. Not to mention they don't understand what atheism is. Atheism isn't necessary the belief in the non existence of something, there is strong atheism and weak atheism, most atheists are weak atheists. Also with a-theism, a means 'without', like a-political (without political affiliation). So the typical definition of atheism is a lack of belief. Agnosticism on the other hand, is a less certain lack of belief, but its still under the definition of atheism.

Person A claims C.
Person B claims NOT C.

Person B is not subject to the burden of proof, because person A is making the claim that something does exist, he must substantiate that claim before person B can accept C is true. Person B does not have to prove NOT C to justify his position. Person A can't say "I lack a belief in claim NOT C", because the default position is NOT C, as we do with everything else. We don't believe in alien abductions because of this same principle, their claims have not be substantiated. The person claiming alien abduction can't say "I lack belief in non alien abduction". This is completely nonsensical.

And even IF they were justified in saying that somehow (they are not), the consequences of that is actually cutting off the branch they are sitting on. Since the person making a claim is as justified as someone making a not claim or negative claim (like this isn't true, or I don't believe this), then that means the theist would have to provide evidence against an infinite variety of different things to justify their infinite non beliefs. There are infinite variety of non beliefs because there are an infinite amount of things you can make up, for example: The purple cosmic hand sanitizer. Where is your evidence this thing doesn't exist? Oh, you don't have evidence this doesn't exist? Then how is a-cosmichandsanitizerism more justified than cosmichandsanitizerism? And where is your evidence that the god of Islam does not exist? On this view, since making a non existence claim is as justified as an existence claim, we can belief really whatever we like then. This sort of idiocy really is baffling.

[Minimalist]

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

Fixed that for you.

[Silver]

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.

[Freedom of thought]

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

Fixed that for you.

Funny... But in reality that is a bit of a huge generalization. There are some very intelligent religious people out there, but for the most part a good 75% of them are incredibly stupid, but then again most of the human race is stupid so that's not saying much.

---

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.

Talking about definitions: Faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof" which is in direct contradiction with reason. Even if we take the more popular definition that people on the site, including WLC says "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". If you have complete trust in something, or an emotional wedge in something, it is by the very nature of 'complete trust' at odds with reason. You can't have 'complete trust' in some idea, and be reasonable at the same time. Because your bias and 'complete trust' will leak through into your metaphysics, like with the presuppositions of the kalam argument is based on. WLC is engaging with presuppositionalism in disguise.

[Lemonvariable72]

IF God was real like they claim then this argument of who has the burden of proof would never happen. It be like arguing about whither not my mother has a cat, if she does have a then all I do is show you a picture. If I was trying to hide the fact that she does own a cat for whatever reason, when in fact she doesn't, then I may say something "Well you cant prove she doesn't have a cat!"

[Brakeman]

I reframe the question to these nuts without the word "believe" which sounds like an action to them.
Instead use the word "convinced." Christians are convinced of the bible stories, atheists are unconvinced.

[Freedom of thought]

I reframe the question to these nuts without the word "believe" which sounds like an action to them.
Instead use the word "convinced." Christians are convinced of the bible stories, atheists are unconvinced.

Where is your evidence that being unconvinced of the bible is true? I am merely lacking the convincedness of being unconvinced of the bible!

[Zidneya]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheism is a lack of belief in all deities, yes.

But that doesn't mean we can't then form judgements on god claims as they're presented. I don't know why the person who posted that believes we can't?

I have rejected every version of the bible god ever presented to me for the same reason; lack of evidence. I pretty much don't believe in any of them (and there's a lot) for this reason. Sure, evidence could be provided, but I don't hold my breath given the thousands of years we've been waiting.

Also, no idea why the poster beings up secularism as something to do with atheism.

People need to learn their political philosophy before equating two things that have nothing to do with one another.

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

I used to throw this around too, but it is really silly when you think about it. If it were the case, then pretty much no atheist alive who once held to theism is not reasonable, or they did not reach their atheism by reason. And it also raises the question as to why atheists who use that quote EVER try to debate theists. After all, they're supposed to be immune to being reasoned out of their religious beliefs, right?