Being an atheist is not passive, it requires an active stance

[Dystopia]

There is a belief circulating in atheist circles and between atheist thinkers that atheism is a neutral, passive position and thus the "standard", it's how we are born. I'd like to question this for a number of reasons.

First of all, we live in a society (all of us, no exceptions) heavily influenced by religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Our conception of morality is influenced by religion, our daily talks are influenced by religion ("Oh my god!"), our politics is influenced by religion, the majority of people in most societies believe in god (at least in some sort of higher force, no exceptions) - We are constantly challenged by TV shows telling us that if we feel depressed we should go to church to get better, we come across all sorts of believers in the supernatural, we see these large buildings called churches and pictures of a bearded hippie Jew that we will eventually know who is even if we are raised non-religious. You may not notice religion's effect clearly but there are no 100% secular societies, all of us have an ancestry heavily influenced by a religion that, by itself, shaped our culture, values, morality, etc.

Secondly, I think some people are naturally more predisposed to believing in god. Putting it simply, why should really smart scientists believe there is a god? Does it make sense? It does make to them. According to Neil Degrasse Tyson 7% of elite scientists believe in a personal god, so I think (as he argues) that there is something in their brain stopping them from believing.

Thirdly - We can make the case that atheism precedes theism but it's a complicated case. What did the first primitive humans believe in? What we know is that, from a very early time, we started believing in higher forces to explain natural events and give us a sense of comfort (afterlives, etc.). Even very primitive human beings that didn't hold conscious belief in gods or had religions probably had delusions and silly beliefs (we all have them, no exceptions).


For these reasons - Mostly the extreme impact religion has on our culture, countries and lives - As well as the fact people who believe have existed for ages, I think being an atheist is not neutral or standard, and it may even be the most active position - Being religious means you are the norm, specially if you are the majority's religion, but being an atheist makes you an exception, someone who doesn't fit the norm, and that may cause problems and changes in your social life. Being an atheist requires you to think and imagine the probability and say "no, I don't think/believe in a god". It's not something that happens by magic and it's not the standard even if you are raised by frivolent anti-theists. You could be raised without even being introduced to the idea of god but eventually you would figure out what it is and your brain would formulate an active stance on the issue.

I don't think this changes anything, it's just my opinion on a problem with little importance, but I still find the need to discuss it. Is atheism the standard? If you can find me someone who was never introduced to the god concept and grew up in a society that is/was always 100% free from any religion or belief in god, I will agree. Since the majority of people believe and religion has (and had) such a tremendous impact - No, it's not the standard, quite the opposite, it requires questioning and critical thinking. 

I'm not trying to change the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods - It's not about that, it's merely to express my opinion about the topic of atheism being the "standard", "passive" and "neutral" position.

[nihilistcat]

I agree, I'd even say that the only thing really separating an intelligent theist from an intelligent atheist, is bigger cojones

[Saxmoof]

You should meet my family, not an ounce of critical thinking between them and they're all atheist - they've never given it much thought

[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.

[ignoramus]

Here is Au, I can easily see many young ones whose parents are not religious mixing at school with lots of other young ones in the same position.
I can imagine these kids getting through high school with barely a conversation about religion.

Australia, as general rule,  is a non practicing Christian nation.
I can't even get an argument started ...noone genuinely cares about the subject.
Plus we're too politically correct to be rude!

Too many distractions.
Footy, surfing, foxtel, dating, games, etc

Life is good without the black cloud over our heads...

[wiploc]

There is a belief circulating in atheist circles and between atheist thinkers that atheism is a neutral, passive position and thus the "standard", it's how we are born. I'd like to question this for a number of reasons.



None of your reasons call this into doubt, except possibly whether atheism is "standard."  And the challenge to whether atheism is standard is simply a matter of how you define the word "standard."  If you want to think theism is standard because most people are theists, feel free.  

I prefer calling atheism the "default" position anyway.  I don't know that I've ever heard an atheist call it standard.  So, the refutation of atheism as standard may be a straw-man argument.  


Is atheism neutral?


- Theists believe that gods do exist.
- Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.  

Theism isn't neutral.  Neither is strong atheism.  But weak atheism clearly is.  If you take the neutral position, you are an atheist.  


Is atheism passive?

I'm guessing that, by "passive," you mean that you don't have to do intellectual work to get there.  If so, then theism and strong atheism are active positions.  Weak atheism can be active too. 

Many people consider the god issue, and wind up staking their claim on weak atheism, saying not only that it is a reasonable position, but that it is the only reasonable position.  That sounds active enough to me.  

But there are other weak atheists who are infants, who've never heard of gods, or maybe who've heard the arguments and gone away confused or uninterested, people who remain in their original weak atheist position simply due to the fact that they have never made an active choice on this topic.  

That's passive, right? 

Anybody who is passive, who hasn't made a choice of what to believe, is an atheist.  


Is atheism how we were born?


Certainly. 

Nobody is born a strong atheist or a theist.  We are each one of us born a weak atheist.  


Is atheism the default position?

Yes.  We start out with no opinion either way, as weak atheists.  Before one switches from not having an opinion to having an opinion, one ought to have a reason.  

So, atheism (weak atheism) is the default position because it's where we start.  It is also the default position because it is where every moral person must be in the absence of a persuasive reason to leave the starting position.  If you don't know of any logic or evidence that militates against weak atheism, then weak atheism is where you must stay.  

Plantinga, for some reason, questions whether there can be epistemic duties.  But, if there were not epistemic duties, then anyone could believe anything.  One could innocently believe that slavery is good, that Donald Trump is god, that one should burn down all houses in order to reduce people's attachment to worldly things.  Any crazy thought could be taken as true, if there were not epistemic duty.  

Since there is epistemic duty, everyone should be a weak atheist until and unless they come up with a good reason to change their position.  

Not all atheists are in the default position, but anyone in the default position is a weak atheist.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

My atheism is personal, and I feel no requirement to speak out to believers because someone wishes to define atheism in a different way.

Me, I live by what I ask for: I don't want some asshole getting in my face with his religion, so I'm not going to shop my absence of religion onto people I don't know.

[Whateverist]

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.

[Ben Davis]

---

There is a belief circulating in atheist circles and between atheist thinkers that atheism is a neutral, passive position and thus the "standard", it's how we are born. I'd like to question this for a number of reasons.

First of all, we live in a society (all of us, no exceptions) heavily influenced by religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Our conception of morality is influenced by religion, our daily talks are influenced by religion ("Oh my god!"), our politics is influenced by religion, the majority of people in most societies believe in god (at least in some sort of higher force, no exceptions) - We are constantly challenged by TV shows telling us that if we feel depressed we should go to church to get better, we come across all sorts of believers in the supernatural, we see these large buildings called churches and pictures of a bearded hippie Jew that we will eventually know who is even if we are raised non-religious. You may not notice religion's effect clearly but there are no 100% secular societies, all of us have an ancestry heavily influenced by a religion that, by itself, shaped our culture, values, morality, etc.

Secondly, I think some people are naturally more predisposed to believing in god. Putting it simply, why should really smart scientists believe there is a god? Does it make sense? It does make to them. According to Neil Degrasse Tyson 7% of elite scientists believe in a personal god, so I think (as he argues) that there is something in their brain stopping them from believing.

Thirdly - We can make the case that atheism precedes theism but it's a complicated case. What did the first primitive humans believe in? What we know is that, from a very early time, we started believing in higher forces to explain natural events and give us a sense of comfort (afterlives, etc.). Even very primitive human beings that didn't hold conscious belief in gods or had religions probably had delusions and silly beliefs (we all have them, no exceptions).


For these reasons - Mostly the extreme impact religion has on our culture, countries and lives - As well as the fact people who believe have existed for ages, I think being an atheist is not neutral or standard, and it may even be the most active position - Being religious means you are the norm, specially if you are the majority's religion, but being an atheist makes you an exception, someone who doesn't fit the norm, and that may cause problems and changes in your social life. Being an atheist requires you to think and imagine the probability and say "no, I don't think/believe in a god". It's not something that happens by magic and it's not the standard even if you are raised by frivolent anti-theists. You could be raised without even being introduced to the idea of god but eventually you would figure out what it is and your brain would formulate an active stance on the issue.

I don't think this changes anything, it's just my opinion on a problem with little importance, but I still find the need to discuss it. Is atheism the standard? If you can find me someone who was never introduced to the god concept and grew up in a society that is/was always 100% free from any religion or belief in god, I will agree. Since the majority of people believe and religion has (and had) such a tremendous impact - No, it's not the standard, quite the opposite, it requires questioning and critical thinking. 

I'm not trying to change the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods - It's not about that, it's merely to express my opinion about the topic of atheism being the "standard", "passive" and "neutral" position.

---

I have to disagree and my reasoning is based on the definitions of the word and the common conflation with anti-theism. 'An absence of theism' is passive. It can be nothing else. An absence of something can do nothing. The moment one takes an active stance or performs a function 'in opposition' to theism, you're behaving anti-theistically. The reason this conflation, of 'a' with 'anti', is common is because of millennia of misrepresentation of atheists by theists. It was useful, historically, for certain (most/all?) religions to target & attack unbelievers and straw-manning atheists' lack of belief seemed to be a preferred method. It seems you've fallen for a simple theistic ruse.

[Aoi Magi]

No I think atheism by itself is just a neutral stance. Just like you don't need to be aggressive in defending your disbelief in the reality of starwars unless you are at a fan convention, you don't need to be aggressive about your stance on religion unless the particular situation calls for it.

Most people are quite capable of coexisting with the religious "kind", minding their own business, and if they do come begging for it, simply shutting the door in their face works in most cases. Personally I think being aggressive towards the religious stupidity is simply not worth it.