Atheism is simply a "Lack of Belief"!

[Rhythmcs]

LOL, I get the sentiment, but a "bad fact" is simply some fact that is worse for an advocate of x then the previous set of assertions were. Bad facts are things which, if true, an advocate would not actually want to be true, had they thought the implications of their claim through.

"Your honor, my client couldn't possibly be guilty of assault, he's a b&e guy and was probably busy robbing some house during the night in question."

or

"My client truly believed it was his house when he opened fire on the occupant"

or, to be completely on the nose...

"It's not that my client can't pay, any such insinuation is slanderous and we will sue! He simply won't".

...all "bad facts".

In a similar vein, if some believer says "my god used to show his literal ass to people" they're not arguing against the apparent fact. It's a tacit admission, in the shape of an excuse for that apparent fact, that the apparent fact is true. Fundamentally, it requires an even more elaborate explanation, itself, after having already conceded the ground to the initial objection. Religions, in practice, are surrounded by bad facts.

[brewerb]

LOL, I get the sentiment, but a "bad fact" is simply some fact that is worse for an advocate of x then the previous set of assertions were.  Bad facts are things which, if true, an advocate would not actually want to be true, had they thought the implications of their claim through.  

"Your honor, my client couldn't possibly be guilty of assault, he's a b&e guy and was probably busy robbing some house during the night in question."

or

"My client truly believed it was his house when he opened fire on the occupant"

or, to be completely on the nose...

"It's not that my client can't pay, any such insinuation is slanderous and we will sue!  He simply won't".

...all "bad facts".

In a similar vein, if some believer says "my god used to show his literal ass to people" they're not arguing against the apparent fact.  It's a tacit admission, in the shape of an excuse for that apparent fact, that the apparent fact is true.  Fundamentally, it requires an even more elaborate explanation, itself, after having already conceded the ground to the initial objection.  Religions, in practice, are surrounded by bad facts.

That begs the question, are 'bad facts' really facts or are they only claimed to be facts?

[Rhythmcs]

In practice? They could be either, though it doesn't actually matter to the categorization. They're not bad facts in terms of quality, in terms of whether or not they're actually true...though that may be concurrently true. They're bad facts with respect to their utility to x. Assertions which if true would put x in an even worse position than it was in before their assertion.

[Rhythmcs]

To expand on the idea of religions being surrounded by bad facts, consider this. A religious claim is a normative claim. An idea of how the world should be. A claim which only makes sense in the context of things being some other way. A list of things which we are committed to making true... wherever they aren't...and it's that second part that circumscribes the bad facts.

If the world ought to be way x...lets say because a god wants it to be that way, then the apparent fact of it being way z is both conceded..and a bad fact. Now we have to wonder why a god is omni-impotent. Fine by me, as the skeptic and psuedo-prosecutor of dubious claims both true and false, but a ball ache for the faithful...as centuries of apologists have demonstrated.