(May 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Zarith Wrote: I would also add that many people do not understand why "make no claim" is the default position in the first place. There's several ways to approach this, I usually try to explain it as, given a set of propositions for which there exist no evidence, you must choose between (a) accepting all of them, (b) accepting only some of them, or © rejecting all of them. Then show why a & b are problematic, and c is the only reasonable choice. While this kind of argument is entirely independent of atheism, it (or something like it) is useful not just when discussing with believers, but also for unbelievers who may not necessarily be able to articulate the basis for their lack of belief.
You are still entirely justified in unbelief regardless of whether or not other people actually understand the reasons why, or even whether or not you yourself understand the reasons why -- you don't owe anyone an explanation. Even still, it's better when those reasons are understood than when they are not.
And more fun! I was just talking to the requirement of justification. It is my opinion that more productive insight can be achieved through understanding and exchanging beliefs. I personally have found that the more I understand about any subject that compels me to start a sentence with the words: "I think that...", and the more reasons I have behind whatever finishes that sentence, the more I am able to gain through the perspective of others that also share a passion for the subject matter such a sentence may contain. I like to expose my beliefs to a vulnerable state that is just as likely to derail my position, as it is to reinforce it. If I do not have a good reason to believe something, then I have no business saying that I do, and rational criticism is always welcomed. I reject claims made by others that are not held equally on the same basis, that do not withstand the same process of indescriminate scrutiny.