RE: Being an atheist is not passive, it requires an active stance
May 20, 2015 at 5:44 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2015 at 5:45 pm by Simon Moon.)
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.
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.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
