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

[ideologue08]

Why would that be a problem for a god?

I didn't.

Why not?

Why were/are you in denial that you provided justification...?

Yes you did.

Your track record.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lol, he's providing justification for rational thought, which is the justification for rejecting theism, which by the way is an easy way of saying he's a defacto atheist. He doesn't believe in atheism, so he's not justifying it in the context you are insisting. The lack of logical justification for theism, justifies the nature and necessity of its inherent counterpart!

Are you being willfully ignorant? She was clearly discussing eye-witness accounts and why they're unreliable. It's like some people on here are intentionally acting stupid...and to be honest I hope so.

Willfully ignorant? No. I assure you it was accidental, and I will admit that I misread the feed while walking through the grocery store and I stand corrected having re-read the posts. For that, I apologize. I will leave you two to your spat! TS-Out!

[NoraBrimstone]

Sorry, did I miss a massive discovery? We now have eye-witness accounts of Jesus? Since when? Shouldn't that have made the news?

[little_monkey]

TO ALL THEISTS:

When anyone of you people has evidence or convincing arguments for the existence of a god, any god, let me know. Otherwise GTFOH.

[Esquilax]

TO ALL THEISTS:

When anyone of you people has evidence or convincing arguments for the existence of a god, any god, let me know. Otherwise GTFOH.

If they had them, you would already know: it's not like theists are particularly quiet about their beliefs even without evidence.

[ideologue08]

You just gotta love it when atheists wank off to each other, it makes sense though....this is the place to do it! Happy fapping guys

[Gearbreak]

You just gotta love it when atheists wank off to each other, it makes sense though....this is the place to do it! Happy fapping guys

Yes, atheists do tend to agree that they don't believe in god. Difference is, they can usually give a good reason for it rather than just calling the opposition circlejerkers.

[Angrboda]

I think you need to look beyond the surface at what the point of the justification being done is. In this case, the justification is justification for rejection of a theist claim, or for rejection of a piece of evidence or argument for the theist claim. Again, the substance is a negative, rejection of theism; not a positive, an argument for non-belief. If there were no theist claim (eyewitness testimony), there would be no need to provide a reason for its rejection. You don't need to provide justification for rejecting a position that nobody holds. You do provide reasons for rejecting positions people do hold. Sam Harris has said that atheism is just the noise people make in the presence of unrealistic theistic claims. I'm not sure I wholly agree with Sam, but in this case his analogy is sound; nobody felt any need to justify until theist claims to truth were introduced.

(ETA: The point might be made clearer if I were to suggest that I had a 12th century eyewitness account of abduction by aliens. Rejecting such an account as evidence for the existence of aliens is not making a positive case for a-alienism, but a negative case against the claim.)

[Whateverist]

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.

I don't mind considering cultural factors but I'm not quite sure how you are suggesting they apply here. I think of cultural factors as bubbling up through individuals, more so in some but less in others. Especially in a place as diverse as in the U.S., you have many competing cultures.

It almost sounds as though you are suggesting there is a kind of accountability to the dominant culture. Please say more about what you have in mind. I'm pretty sure I don't understand.

---

You do provide reasons for rejecting positions people do hold. Sam Harris has said that atheism is just the noise people make in the presence of unrealistic theistic claims. I'm not sure I wholly agree with Sam, but in this case his analogy is sound; nobody felt any need to justify until theist claims to truth were introduced.

For those of us brought up in the Christian miasma, we each in some way or other had to confront the sense in which we were leaving the herd. I remember feeling that but I was so young and better able to accommodate change. So there may be a point in my movement toward atheism at which thinking through my reasons was something I was doing. That phase is over.

I suppose if a theist asked me to try to remember what reasons I'd found persuasive at that time, I could try to remember. But I seriously doubt I could recall in any detail and would just end of confabulating something that seems logical to me now.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lol, he's providing justification for rational thought, which is the justification for rejecting theism, which by the way is an easy way of saying he's a defacto atheist. He doesn't believe in atheism, so he's not justifying it in the context you are insisting. The lack of logical justification for theism, justifies the nature and necessity of its inherent counterpart!

I concede that my comment was not applicable in the context of your exchange, but I stand by it as a valid statement pertaining to the justification of rational thought as a defense for atheism...should anyone be looking for such a thing. I have an inkling that it will come up again in the future.