The atheist told me he “lacked belief”;
That the burden of proof was on those who believe
The ubiquitous taunting: “you can’t disprove God”
Was fallacious—just what did they hope to achieve?
He chided believers for missing his point
Cos the logic is simple; it’s easy to show
When it comes to belief, it can only be true
That a lack of a “yes” is the same as a “no”.
A logical argument, deftly presented—
It’s hard to deny what the atheist meant…
So why does it seem to defy comprehension
When switching one word, from “belief” to “consent”?
Yes, this is a bit of tilting at strawmen–at least, I hope it is. There aren’t any atheists who are outright saying that a lack of a “no” is the same as a “yes”, are there? I mean, it’s bad enough that the burden of all “don’t do X” recommendations is on the victim, but the very idea of active consent? That has to be… I mean…
A lack of a yes is the same as a no
Which brings a conclusion that none can escape:
Consent must be active, informed, and clear-headed;
To argue this point is to advocate rape.