Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I noticed recently that there are a lot more arguments that attack the justifiability of believing rather than assert the position of knowing....Should we be claiming that a) I lack belief and b) that those who profess belief are being unreasonable, instead of just claiming a lack of belief?   Is the relative obscurity of proofs of the impossibility of god a problem for atheism?

Indeed. Some people think that if belief is shown to be unjustifiable then that leaves atheism the best explanation. I actually agree, but those people are usually right for the wrong reason. Atheism is not the default position, i.e. a Rousseauian natural state. The default position is personal, the familial and cultural context out of which people grow. Once people attain the age of reason, they start to wonder why things are as they seem to be and question the adequacy of the beliefs they already have. For example in 15th century Italy, Roman Catholicism was the default belief system. That notion seems to be a logical extension of the blog post referenced in my OP. In human society there is no unqualified lack of belief in God any more than there is an unqualified belief in Him. Disbelief is always lack of belief because…don’t care, insufficient evidence, logical incoherence, theodicy, etc. These are too are justifications.