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

[Violet]

Can be a claim. Hopefully isn't, but y'know: people think strange things in this world. Like deodorant tasting like ice cream because it's white. It smells great, but I really... just no guys, just say no to deodorant in the mouth.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This would never happen if theists asked atheists what atheism is, rather then take their pastors word for it. They come here thinking atheism is an opposing belief.

A-fucking-men.

[Creed of Heresy]

I think (I THINK. I'm not stating this is objective fact, this is just my musing) that the reason why people ask for atheism to have a case is because religion is the majority view. It's kind of an ad populum sort of thing. The vast majority of humanity is religious and for most of history it's been religious or spiritual or generally superstitious. It's one form of an argument, I conjecture, to state that because humans have always been religious or superstitious that therefore there MUST be something to it. I say this mostly from a very American point of view, of course, a nation with a very conservative view overall. Tradition and the old ways are something to be preserved and upheld...even if it flies in the face of rationality. There's a lot of religious folk out there who point out that atheism is on the rise in the US [along with the acceptance of pornography and drug use and a bunch of other shit] and they can't help but notice that at the same time the US isn't quite as glorious and heroic in image anymore...at least, in their eyes we aren't. To the rest of the world, we were never either of those things to begin with. They think correlation means causation. Atheism is on the rise and old-timey American values are falling away and meanwhile the country's got a bunch of problems. An error in logic results in these people thinking that atheism and anti-conservative views are to blame...without considering the possibility that both might actually be a RESULT of the problems we face. "This isn't working, so let's try these other ideas" sort of thing.

So, atheism is, at least in its modern context, pretty new to most religious people. They grow up being told atheists are just despicable, or hateful, or all this other nonsense, and that we are also very very few, and in truth, atheists have, for a while, tended to be quieter about their views, but with the new atheism thing, many more atheists feel a lot more comfortable being open about their views, because they realize they're NOT so rare as the majority have made out to claim. So now the religious are being confronted with far more atheists than they thought actually existed, so they suddenly feel the urge to dismiss atheists as a potential threat. Downplay the threat and you can dismiss it. How better to downplay something than to state that it has no case? And, no, atheism really doesn't "have a case," because it doesn't need to have a case, because things that are inherently true display the fact that they are true on their own without having to bring a bunch of artillery to the discussion, because atheism is actually the most reasonable course, but the thing is...if you could reason with superstitious people...they wouldn't be superstitious.

So they come up with their incredibly complex, overly-convoluted tales and stories that span hundreds of pages and say "SEE? THIS IS WHAT I HAVE! WHAT DO YOOOOUUUU HAVE, MR. SMARTY-ATHEIST-PANTS?" To them, the grandness of their story entertains and occupies them so when confronted with the simple rebuttal ["So...where's the actual proof of any of this...?"], they see it almost like an insult, a mockery of their grandiose claims with its simplicity. Rather than answer the question, they start demanding the rebuttal become as grand and epic as they think their stories to be.

Hence comes the opinions that atheism needs to have a case. From the theists because they feel that if their beliefs are going to be invalidated then they must be done grandly and with as much pomp and circumstance as their beliefs have always imparted [ever notice how large and grand the mosques and churches and temples are?], and from the atheists [sometimes] because we feel that if we can get the superstitious to realize what an illusion it all is, what a bunch of magic tricks it all is, we can wake them up to the reality of everything. Houdini comes to mind, here. Wasn't he the one who stated that when a magician tells someone how his act works, it removes the magic from the spectacle for the person who knows how the whole thing works? How fitting, considering how religious works...lots and lots of smoke in mirrors.

And, once again, a post gets away from me and I go off on a ramble.

Tl;dr: Atheism is what happens when you see the illusion for what it really is, and no case needs to be made for it because it's just simple fact. Religion and superstition is what happens when people take things at face value or just simply have wild imaginations. And that's fine. Have your wild imagination. But don't expect me to believe your fanciful musings are anything more than that.

---

Can be a claim. Hopefully isn't, but y'know: people think strange things in this world. Like deodorant tasting like ice cream because it's white. It smells great, but I really... just no guys, just say no to deodorant in the mouth.

And that spirits exist. ;D

[NoraBrimstone]

No more sense than ask someone their case for not believing there are elephants living at the bottom of the Atlantic, or Alpacas on Titan.

[the antithesis]

Every case for theism is a case for atheism.

[little_monkey]

Yep, I'm a non-stamp collector, or should I say a-stamp collector???

[Zarith]

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

[the antithesis]

If atheists do not define what atheism is, and the case for it, then someone else will.

They do that whether we do or not. This is why there is no debate. They are too deceptive to have an actual conversation.

[little_monkey]

It's basically a question of power. The theists are in the majority and they have dictated their terms for a very long time - one of the reasons they are so irritated by and in fear of the "new" atheism, which is more vocal, more activist, more threatening.

[Jackalope]

It's basically a question of power. The theists are in the majority and they have dictated their terms for a very long time - one of the reasons they are so irritated by and in fear of the "new" atheism, which is more vocal, more activist, more threatening.

Good.