(May 21, 2015 at 1:56 am)whateverist Wrote:(May 20, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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.
I don't feel I need to justify not being a theist. The reasons for it can vary a lot between people. Some emphasize some illogic in the definition of what a god is. Some really don't care if gods exist or not. Some emphasize the moral monstrosity of the bible's god. Some really are more agnostic than atheist. I can cop to each of these to some degree, except perhaps for the immoral god part. (I don't think I'd feel any different if the character portrayed was a super chill dude. No shepherd needed.)
What I don't feel is any need to promote atheism. I'd be equally happy if people were just better theists. It is obviously possible to be intelligent about it. Most aren't. So I'm definitely not an anti-theist.
To bounce off what you stated, I don't proselytize for atheism. I can't think of any atheist person stating "You should be an atheist because of x, y, and z." What I know of and participate in myself is a defense of atheism, secularism, and freedom of religion from those who would bully us into submission. The bullies I am referring to are the uberzealous Christians in American society who would have us sit down and shut up like nice little children that should be seen and not heard; even more specifically the Dominionists who are on record in their writings and speeches and social media that they are not above killing us because their god said so in their Old Testament, or that they consider us "dirty heathens."
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."--Thomas Jefferson
