Being an atheist is not passive, it requires an active stance

[Dystopia]

Thanks everyone for answering, I'm sorry for taking so long to reply but I've been extremely busy

You should meet my family, not an ounce of critical thinking between them and they're all atheist - they've never given it much thought

Why? Have you asked them why they don't believe? Everything we do - unless we're talking about instinctive reactions - Is rationalized and people have reasons to be all sorts of things. I'm sure your family didn't reach the conclusion that there is (most likely) no god by playing russian roulette.

I agree in part. 



Philosophically, at it's core, atheism is a passive position.

But in the real world, where religion is so prominent, and its (mostly negative) effects reach everyone, atheism is an active position. 

It seems to me, that whether atheism is an active or passive position, depends on the scope of the debate. 

When defending atheism, or defending the justification for not being a theist, in a debate, all that needs to be defended is the passive position.

Thanks, this is my position - Agnostic atheism is a passive position, but the process of reaching that conclusion is not passive, it requires active thinking. Nobody says "I don't think there has to be a god" without any compelling reason because in many ways believing is the standard in our society. I think when atheists make positive claims (Like "Your religion is 100% false") they need to provide evidence.

- Theists believe that gods do exist. 

- Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist. 

- Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.  


Theism isn't neutral.  Neither is strong atheism.  But weak atheism clearly is.  If you take the neutral position, you are an atheist.  

And? None of that makes it neutral. You don't believe gods exist, it's not "I don't believe either way". So are you saying weak atheists are superior to strong atheists?

I'm guessing that, by "passive," you mean that you don't have to do intellectual work to get there.  If so, then theism and strong atheism are active positions.  Weak atheism can be active too.  

Many people consider the god issue, and wind up staking their claim on weak atheism, saying not only that it is a reasonable position, but that it is the only reasonable position.  That sounds active enough to me.  



But there are other weak atheists who are infants, who've never heard of gods, or maybe who've heard the arguments and gone away confused or uninterested, people who remain in their original weak atheist position simply due to the fact that they have never made an active choice on this topic.  



That's passive, right?  


Anybody who is passive, who hasn't made a choice of what to believe, is an atheist.  

I agree, but very few people haven't been exposed enough to the god concept to formulate a rational position. Find me someone who doesn't believe by not giving it enough thought (or zero at all).

Certainly.  

Nobody is born a strong atheist or a theist.  We are each one of us born a weak atheist.  

I don't disagree, but that's irrelevant to consider it neutral or standard - We are also born without morality, without knowing how to cook, read and write. If atheism is the standard because it's how we are born, then not knowing how to read is also the standard


Also, since belief in god arose naturally trough generations of human evolution isn't it pretty much a natural occurrence in nature?

Yes.  We start out with no opinion either way, as weak atheists.  Before one switches from not having an opinion to having an opinion, one ought to have a reason.  

So, atheism (weak atheism) is the default position because it's where we start.  It is also the default position because it is where every moral person must be in the absence of a persuasive reason to leave the starting position.  If you don't know of any logic or evidence that militates against weak atheism, then weak atheism is where you must stay.  



Plantinga, for some reason, questions whether there can be epistemic duties.  But, if there were not epistemic duties, then anyone could believe anything.  One could innocently believe that slavery is good, that Donald Trump is god, that one should burn down all houses in order to reduce people's attachment to worldly things.  Any crazy thought could be taken as true, if there were not epistemic duty.  



Since there is epistemic duty, everyone should be a weak atheist until and unless they come up with a good reason to change their position.  


Not all atheists are in the default position, but anyone in the default position is a weak atheist.  

See above.

I have to disagree and my reasoning is based on the definitions of the word and the common conflation with anti-theism. 'An absence of theism' is passive. It can be nothing else. An absence of something can do nothing. The moment one takes an active stance or performs a function 'in opposition' to theism, you're behaving anti-theistically. The reason this conflation, of 'a' with 'anti', is common is because of millennia of misrepresentation of atheists by theists. It was useful, historically, for certain (most/all?) religions to target & attack unbelievers and straw-manning atheists' lack of belief seemed to be a preferred method. It seems you've fallen for a simple theistic ruse.

So, in your opinion, every small critique of religion or theism is anti-theism? I don't see the relevance of this to the OP - I'm just arguing that the process of not believing in a society where most believe is active, even if the position, in its core, is a passive one, both philosophically and scientifically.

No I think atheism by itself is just a neutral stance. Just like you don't need to be aggressive in defending your disbelief in the reality of starwars unless you are at a fan convention, you don't need to be aggressive about your stance on religion unless the particular situation calls for it.

This is when people miss the point - Belief in starwars isn't strong enough to impact your culture, to shape your moral values and influence generations and generations of Humans. Most people in the world don't believe starwars is real. Both are equally unverifiable but to not believe in starwars is seen as the standard because almost no one believes in starwars and has never believed - But believing in god is so common (and there's phrases like "OMG" ingrained in our dialect) that not believing requires you to actively think about the subject and go against the majority. You can't reach the conclusion out of the blue.


I can understand the appeal to ridicule when comparing god with starwars or golf, etc, but most people in this society don't play golf and you don't hear phrases like "That's a nice hole" instead of "OMG" in your daily lives - You don't see monuments dedicated to golf, golf players being massively worshipped and a sect of common patterns between golf players, etc. If most people in this society played golf, agolfist would make sense. Because most people believe in god, at least in a higher force, then not believing requires active thought and the word atheist makes sense.

I think atheism is a passive stance; critical thought, i.e. learning how to make judgments using the principles of science, and evaluate claims on the basis of sound evidence and valid reasoning --- that is the active part.

But don't you need to make a few judgements before reaching the agnostic atheist position? Or do you believe people can lack belief just out of randomness? Aren't all our opinions rationalized (even bad unethical ones)?

Yes, I would agree.  There is some ambiguity in the OP as to whether they mean this, or whether by active stance they mean a position characterized by political/religious activism.

I'm not talking about militant atheism and I'm not trying to change the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods - My point is that reaching the conclusion of agnostic atheism in a society both heavily influenced by religion and where most people believe in god (to the extent it is somehow the standard and expectable) requires active thought and going against the rest of the people.


I know technically everyone is born atheist - Fine, my dog is also an atheist (technically) but that's irrelevant - We are born without many abilities and knowledge we later learn in life. If being an atheist is standard because it's how we are born then not knowing how to cook is also the standard. Since theism arose out of natural processes I think it can be as standard as atheism - Surely someone once though "there has to be something up there" and then everyone started believing, and that happened out of natural phenomenons, evolution and so on.

[Spooky]

Dystopia, I agree with your statement completely. This is a large part of the reason I just bought a t-shirt stating "Militant Atheist".

If I believe religion is bad for humanity, why shouldn't I do my part to stop it?

[comet]

emotional beliefs and hard facts are different. How you feel about religion and the truth about religion may be quite different. How do I tell? check out the definition of militant. then what type of militant do you choose to be like? Washington, lee, king? or Castro, Lennon, Mao, or sharpton? But screw little facts. I have an emotional opinion that is more important

[Secular Elf]

It seems to me, that whether atheism is an active or passive position, depends on the scope of the debate.

When defending atheism, or defending the justification for not being a theist, in a debate, all that needs to be defended is the passive position.

I don't feel I need to justify not being a theist.  The reasons for it can vary a lot between people.  Some emphasize some illogic in the definition of what a god is.  Some really don't care if gods exist or not.  Some emphasize the moral monstrosity of the bible's god.  Some really are more agnostic than atheist.  I can cop to each of these to some degree, except perhaps for the immoral god part.  (I don't think I'd feel any different if the character portrayed was a super chill dude.  No shepherd needed.)

What I don't feel is any need to promote atheism.  I'd be equally happy if people were just better theists.  It is obviously possible to be intelligent about it.  Most aren't.  So I'm definitely not an anti-theist.

To bounce off what you stated, I don't proselytize for atheism.  I can't think of any atheist person stating "You should be an atheist because of x, y, and z."  What I know of and participate in myself is a defense of atheism, secularism, and freedom of religion from those who would bully us into submission.  The bullies I am referring to are the uberzealous Christians in American society who would have us sit down and shut up like nice little children that should be seen and not heard; even more specifically the Dominionists who are on record in their writings and speeches and social media that they are not above killing us because their god said so in their Old Testament, or that they consider us "dirty heathens."

[Whateverist]

Well put. Do you find many others who think as you do where you are? Nice to know we have such capable spokesmen in such gawd forsaken places. We need you on that wall.

[ReptilianPeon]

I think Atheism is natural but, unfortunately, most societies have been corrupted by Theism. If you look hard enough, you will find people whose language does not have a word for "god". Deep within the Amazon Jungle, live the Pirahã people. The linguist Daniel Everett went to the Pirahã people initially as a Christian Missionary and returned as Atheist because what he found shocked him.

He discovered the Pirahã have no interest in deities. I've read his book about his experiences with the Pirahã, Don't Sleep There Are Snakes, and he says he had to create a word to represent Yaweh because the Pirahã had no deities in their culture. Although they believe in "spirits", spirits are not the same thing as deities so that makes Pirahã Atheists because Atheism a rejection of claims made about deities and nothing more.

Initially Daniel thought the Pirahã had an interest in the Bible (he recorded it in their language) but they apparently kept repeating the part in the recording where John the Baptist was killed and showed no interest in anything else. He found out that Pirahã are only interested in the present and recent past. When a person dies, the Pirahã people gradually forget about that person. Daniel would sometimes refer to people had died and the Pirahã would deny that person ever existed.

Other interesting facts about the Pirahã people:
1. Pirahã can't count. They struggle with even small numbers.
2. Pirahã can't draw. They can only create 'lines'.
3. Pirahã society is akin to the Primitive Communism Karl Marx talked about.

[Ben Davis]

So, in your opinion, every small critique of religion or theism is anti-theism? I don't see the relevance of this to the OP - I'm just arguing that the process of not believing in a society where most believe is active, even if the position, in its core, is a passive one, both philosophically and scientifically.

Sorry, I must not have made my point clear. Atheism is the default position because there is an absence of theism at birth and unless one is taught theism, it won't arise except as an exception. This is demonstrable as both individuals and societies are found in which no theism has arisen. So whilst 'belief' seems to be a natural human trait (with the exception of some psycho/sociopathies), those beliefs aren't necessarily theistic. My reference to the conflation of a/anti-theism was to illustrate the reason why people confuse atheism as a belief thus leading to the error in assumption of the default position.

Atheism is, by definition, passive as one need take no action in order to be or remain atheistic: an absence of something can do nothing. As soon as one becomes active in any matter, one is applying a value system not an absence of one.

Also it's technically correct (the best kind of correct ) to refer to every position 'in opposition to theism' as 'antitheism'. That's what the word means. Whether an individual would be described as 'an antitheist' for holding a small number of such positions, I would think is highly unlikely. There must be some tipping point in public perception where enough views are held/publicised or are of sufficient impact for people to use the gross categorisation 'antitheist'.

[robvalue]

Right. I can criticise my wife for something, and that doesn't make me anti-my wife. You could say I was being anti-my wife for a short period, on a particular issue. If however I have long standing and vocal objections to many aspects of my wife, then you could call me an anti-my wife.

[comet]

Right. I can criticise my wife for something, and that doesn't make me anti-my wife. You could say I was being anti-my wife for a short period, on a particular issue. If however I have long standing and vocal objections to many aspects of my wife, then you could call me an anti-my wife.

yuppers.  I agree with this.

And born "atheist" is like being born not walking.  I chopped my legs off because I was born not walking.  I am in on that logic. 
 

[Ben Davis]

And born "atheist" is like being born not walking.  I chopped my legs off because I was born not walking.  I am in on that logic.

Hmmm, not sure I get you on this. Are you saying that one will, by default, develop theism as one would normally develop walking skill (all being well)? If so, I don't agree. To use that analogy, theism would be more like developing roller-skates: you're born an a-skate-ist (atheist), develop walking skill (the capacity to believe things) and someone may or may not teach you to roller-skate (theist). You might work out roller-skating by yourself or you may even develop new forms of wheeled transport (Heeleys, you heretic!) although it's most likely that you'll adopt what you were taught.

Or am I getting you wrong?