If atheists do not define what atheism is, and the case for it, then someone else will. This is a bad thing. Someone else will try to do it anyway, but they shouldn't be able to do so uncontested.
Also, for whatever reason, many people accept theistic interpretations of the world around them. Whether this is an accident of history, biology, psychology, or something else ... who knows? The default logical position is atheism, but humans aren't entirely logical. It may be that the default psychological position is theism. I would even say that there's a good bit of evidence for this.
The "non-golfer", or "don't need a word for unbelief in invisible pink unicorns" type arguments I think gloss over an important point. If golfing were regarded by many as a virtuous activity, and I were routinely accused of being an immoral and corrupt individual because of my refusal to play golf, while golfers claimed that their act of golfing made them inherently virtuous, and that all other non-golfing activities are void of value, and the question of golfing routinely showed its face in policy making, then I don't think it would be such a ridiculous thing to lay out the case for "non-golfing", and even to make a term for it.
TLDR; logically speaking, no "case for" is needed, but practically speaking, it is
Also, for whatever reason, many people accept theistic interpretations of the world around them. Whether this is an accident of history, biology, psychology, or something else ... who knows? The default logical position is atheism, but humans aren't entirely logical. It may be that the default psychological position is theism. I would even say that there's a good bit of evidence for this.
The "non-golfer", or "don't need a word for unbelief in invisible pink unicorns" type arguments I think gloss over an important point. If golfing were regarded by many as a virtuous activity, and I were routinely accused of being an immoral and corrupt individual because of my refusal to play golf, while golfers claimed that their act of golfing made them inherently virtuous, and that all other non-golfing activities are void of value, and the question of golfing routinely showed its face in policy making, then I don't think it would be such a ridiculous thing to lay out the case for "non-golfing", and even to make a term for it.
TLDR; logically speaking, no "case for" is needed, but practically speaking, it is
