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

[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?