No need to defend atheism:

I have mentioned this before. However, it bares repeating. Atheism is a neutral position. As such it does not require a logical argument to reach it. It is the starting point. Something either is, or it is not. Belief is, or it is not. If you hold no belief in a god or gods, your are by default, an atheist. If someone wants to convince you of something, they must supply the argument for it. Atheism is the logical position until one feels that enough evidence is presented to support moving from that position. An individual holding the neutral position need not give reasons for not accepting the arguments presented. They simply need to state that it is not sufficiently presented. This is not to say that one cannot state why the arguments presented do not hold merit. It is simply to say that explaination is not required to stay put.

There are many “canned” apologetic arguments. All of which are designed to place the individual holding the neutral position in the defense position. This approach is not intellectually honest. It attempts to trick the individual holding the neutral position into thinking that their position is invalid because they can not defend it. Therein lies the deception. You can not prove a negative. You cannot argue that something is not. This is why the burden of proof is always on the positive argument. Don’t allow someone to try to falsely, and dishonestly, turn the tables.

2 thoughts on “No need to defend atheism:

    1. Not at all. Naturalism is a positive positioning. I would say that, if asked, one would need to provide evidence for it. Therefore, I would ask for the understanding of naturalism. It’s more than understanding that things have natural processes. Naturalism is accepting that things have natural origins and discounts supernatural orgins. I would defend this position by simply stating that we can observe natural processes. We can see how things come by a natural method. Given this, we can logically assume that all things come about by a natural process, as is evident in our natural world. The discounting of the supernatural is not necessarily a goal. It simply doesn’t follow what is observed. We do not have examples of verifiable supernatural events. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the supernatural does not exist. However, this is a falsifiable position. And as such, still falls within the realm of science. Someone could someday produce evidence of a verifiable supernatural event. Since we have no such proof, we assume naturalism. I like to give this example. How does the way human reproduction works support a naturalist view? How does it support a spiritualist view? My observation is that, if a deity were in control of reproductive processes, only one sperm would be needed. That one sperm would be devinely guided to the egg. If, of course, that would be needed at all. Instead we see 100 million sperm involved in the process to maximize the “chance” of fertilization. This supports a naturalist view rather than a spiritual one. That’s just one example. Please feel free to correct errors in my logic.

Leave a Reply