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

[Zarith]

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.

[Angrboda]

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

[Simon Moon]

Sometimes the position itself does require justification, a small example would be that many people believe- based upon historical/anecdotal evidence- that Jesus Christ performed miracles, or Paul saw Christ in the road etc. Now, denying this, there will obviously need to be some sort of justification.

Those are not examples historical evidence, nor are they examples of anecdotal evidence.

To deny either of your examples requires no more justification than to justify disbelief that the god Indra battled Vitra as recorded in the Vedas.

[ideologue08]

Those are not examples historical evidence, nor are they examples of anecdotal evidence.
To deny either of your examples requires no more justification than to justify disbelief that the god Indra battled Vitra as recorded in the Vedas.

As long as there are eye-witness claims or purportedly to be so, there will always be some justification required to reject it, you cannot reject an alleged eye-witness without some sort of justification. Well you can, but then the rejection will be baseless.

[The Reality Salesman01]

denying this, there will obviously need to be some sort of justification.

I think need and justification are words I just don't like in the context of lacking belief or holding one...

Perhaps, explanation is best? In my opinion everyone should understand their beliefs enough to be able to explain it, and should they feel compelled to do so, and if in their explanation they make a claim, then it should be scrutinized. If you do not have good reason to make a claim, and you cannot provide a rational explanation for your beliefs that drove you to that claim, and you solicit these claims to others, then you are a Christian....te he he he.

[Colanth]

As long as there are eye-witness claims or purportedly to be so, there will always be some justification required to reject it, you cannot reject an alleged eye-witness without some sort of justification.

An "eyewitness account" given third (or hundredth) hand is about as compelling a reason to accept as "because I said so". Eyewitness accounts are generally unreliable, and "I read it in a book that's the 13th translation of the original - which may be fact or fiction" makes an eyewitness account look like positive proof.

Not seeing any evidence of any gods, nor any need for one to explain anything, is sufficient reason to not accept claims of one. But telling a theist that there's no actual evidence of any god is just opening yourself up to a barrage of nonsense.

[ideologue08]

As long as there are eye-witness claims or purportedly to be so, there will always be some justification required to reject it, you cannot reject an alleged eye-witness without some sort of justification.

An "eyewitness account" given third (or hundredth) hand is about as compelling a reason to accept as "because I said so". Eyewitness accounts are generally unreliable, and "I read it in a book that's the 13th translation of the original - which may be fact or fiction" makes an eyewitness account look like positive proof.

Not seeing any evidence of any gods, nor any need for one to explain anything, is sufficient reason to not accept claims of one. But telling a theist that there's no actual evidence of any god is just opening yourself up to a barrage of nonsense.

By criticism it in that manner, you are providing some justification for you rejecting it, which is exactly what I said ought to be done.

That's simply not true, I'm not discussing the issue of god right now because that's opening up a can of worms but there are an awful lot of things I don't see everyday, yet I believe they happened, I'm sure it's the same for you. We are not all-seeing, and to rely upon our individual faculties as a criterion to discern fact from fiction isn't going to get anyone very far in the real world. The idea that you have to see to believe is false, you can see things and not have to believe it and sometimes you can't see things but you believe it. Did you see the universe form as outlined by the big bang theory? Clearly not, but it's a plausible and believable theory.

[Simon Moon]

As long as there are eye-witness claims or purportedly to be so, there will always be some justification required to reject it, you cannot reject an alleged eye-witness without some sort of justification. Well you can, but then the rejection will be baseless.

There is no evidence that these accounts were written by eyewitnesses.

So, my justification to disbelieve them is that there is no evidence that there are eyewitness accounts.

And eyewitness accounts alone are not reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims. Any one of us can go talk to thousands of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.

[ideologue08]

There is no evidence that these accounts were written by eyewitnesses.

So, my justification to disbelieve them is that there is no evidence that there are eyewitness accounts.

And eyewitness accounts alone are not reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims. Any one of us can go talk to thousands of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.

So bottom line is you do have some sort of justification...which is what I was saying you ought to have all along. I'm not sure what your deal is here.