Does it make any sense to ask what is the case for atheism?

[Whateverist]

If atheists do not define what atheism is, and the case for it, then someone else will.

They do that whether we do or not. This is why there is no debate. They are too deceptive to have an actual conversation.

I agree with antithesis that they will misunderstand what atheism means regardless. If anyone thought that reason would be in play, more of us might make the effort to explain why we think atheism makes sense. But if you expect reason from those for whom the basis for believing is wish fulfillment, you are unreasonably optimistic.

[ideologue08]

I thought calling another member out like this is against the rules of the forum? In any case, I agree with Drew here.

[Faith No More]

Refuting and/or discussing an argument brought up by another person is not calling them out.

[ideologue08]

I got quite scared there, it looked like I took the piss out of myself!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Does it make sense to consider cultural factors? Regardless of the issue, if your opinion is at odds with the dominant culture, it seems reasonable to believe you have actual reasons for defying the common consensus. Only the dominant opinion can be taken for granted. Suppose you are the only conservative in a family of liberals. Liberalism is the default position. So if you are going to opine within hat context, prudence suggests you should be prepared to justify your stance.

On a forum devoted to atheism, atheism is the default position. Thus, no justification is needed. However in the larger USA community, where religious belief is the norm, the roles are reversed.

[Zarith]

They do that whether we do or not. This is why there is no debate. They are too deceptive to have an actual conversation.

I agree with antithesis that they will misunderstand what atheism means regardless. If anyone thought that reason would be in play, more of us might make the effort to explain why we think atheism makes sense. But if you expect reason from those for whom the basis for believing is wish fulfillment, you are unreasonably optimistic.

I too agree with antithesis, but that's not evident from the part he quoted since it omitted the following sentence, in which I expressed the same sentiment.

Anyway, the point I was making is not that you should go use reason and try to convince an irrational person that they are wrong. There are a lot of people who don't really know what they believe, and many of these are more reasonable than the theists who have already made up their mind. These unidentified types will be exposed to the caricature of atheism that religious types like to present, and there isn't really much you or I can do about that. So I would hope that they would also get to hear the real thing straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, which is why I think making "the case" is not a misguided thing to do at all.

[Simon Moon]

Does it make sense to consider cultural factors? Regardless of the issue, if your opinion is at odds with the dominant culture, it seems reasonable to believe you have actual reasons for defying the common consensus. Only the dominant opinion can be taken for granted. Suppose you are the only conservative in a family of liberals. Liberalism is the default position. So if you are going to opine within hat context, prudence suggests you should be prepared to justify your stance.

No, it makes no sense.

This is an appeal to popularity and tradition.

The default position with regards to existential claims does not change because of what the majority believe.

If you moved to an area of Mexico where the majority of the population believe Chupacanbra exists, the default position is still disbelief.

On a forum devoted to atheism, atheism is the default position. Thus, no justification is needed. However in the larger USA community, where religious belief is the norm, the roles are reversed.

Atheism is the default position because it makes no claims. It is not the default position because this is an atheist forum.

[Angrboda]

From the viewpoint of epistemology, perhaps. But socially, I think Chad has a point. You may not need to explain or justify the lack of belief, but I think the event itself, you being different than others of your social group, seems to beg for explanation, even if the position itself is not in need of justification. Granted, some of those explanations are mundane (I grew up in an atheist household, etc), or not friendly to the theist point of view (I saw through all the bullshit). I wonder, if, perhaps, sometimes theists are simply looking to confirm their group's mythology concerning why people become/are atheists (desire to sin, bad emotional experience); atheists do the same in attempting to explain conversion to a religion. It's worth bearing in mind that the "mythology" surrounding why atheists do what they do is there for a purpose, both psychologically and politically, so there is likely to be great reluctance expressed towards relinquishing it.

[ideologue08]

From the viewpoint of epistemology, perhaps. But socially, I think Chad has a point. You may not need to explain or justify the lack of belief, but I think the event itself, you becoming different than others of your social group, seems to beg for explanation, even if the position itself is not in need of justification.

Sometimes the position itself does require justification, a small example would be that many people believe- based upon historical/anecdotal evidence- that Jesus Christ performed miracles, or Paul saw Christ in the road etc. Now, denying this, there will obviously need to be some sort of justification.

[The Reality Salesman01]

. So if you are going to opine within hat context, prudence suggests you should be prepared to justify your stance.

Indeed! It should be quite easy too. Especially since the road to Atheism, for many, went straight through the town of Theism, before arriving at the current destination-Atheism. If you think of your views on religion like a trip. Your views can accurately be described and justified, by a description of places traveled (i.e. From Agnostic Town, through Christianburgh, and then ultimately arriving at Atheist Villiage) .The story you tell, and your experiences at each stop, will illustrate quite perfectly the factors leading to the postition you currently hold, or the last stop in your travels (your current views). For Atheists to explain why they are Atheist, in the case described above, the encounters along their journey are ultimately what brought them to their location, and are sufficient enough, even if only for them, to take their stance. Some people tend to revisit places they've already been, because they did not have a clear understanding of why they left. This is true for theists and atheists alike, at least, that is my opinion.

On a forum devoted to atheism, atheism is the default position. Thus, no justification is needed. However in the larger USA community, where religious belief is the norm, the roles are reversed.

I do not think that any belief requires justification. I do however think that any belief proposed to be true should be subjected to criticism and scrutiny.

If I simply lack belief in any claim, religious or not, my reasons for not being convinced of it to be true, if logically sound, need not be understood by anyone in order to be justified. If one takes issue with my not being convinced, then they are wasting time that could be spent providing logical reasons for their claims, rather than asking me to repeat why the last ones they've provided imply that in order for me to accept their claims, I am to abandon the criteria that distinguishes existance from non-existance. But if this were the case, I would not be able to discard any belief, as the criteria for validity would have had to been thrown out the window. Why not just provide a reason that doesn't require this as a sacrifice, instead of finding more that require the same consequences?