Can an Atheist Defend Their Position Without a Position?

A common misunderstanding about atheism is that those who identify as atheists possess a position, akin to religious believers who claim to adhere to a specific faith. However, atheism is more accurately described as a lack of belief in deities. This lack of belief is not a position, but rather a rational response to the concept of gods in the absence of credible evidence.

Why Defend What You Lack?

The non-belief in a fantastic claim based on no credible evidence does not necessitate a defense. Atheists do not hold that the mere absence of belief in gods or deities is a position that requires justification. Instead, the assertion that one is an atheist simply reflects a lack of belief in the existence of gods, which is a natural and evidence-based stance.

Why Are There No Defenses?

The objection often raised against atheists is the assertion that their disbelief in any god or deity is irrational or blind. However, the refusal to believe in gods due to a lack of credible evidence is a logical and reasonable position. Unlike the "faith" some may claim to have, atheism is based on a pragmatic acceptance of what has been proven, which in the case of gods or deities, is a total lack of evidence.

Defending the Lack of Belief in Marduk

The core argument in favor of atheism can equally apply to the god Marduk, among others. The assertion that one does not believe in a specific god is not separate from not believing in others. If one does not believe in Marduk due to the lack of credible evidence, the same applies to other gods such as Zeus, Odin, or Ra. The total number of gods believed in varies, but the overwhelming majority of gods ever conceptualized by humans have not been substantiated by any credible evidence. Therefore, the refusal to believe in all these deities is a logical extension of the absence of evidence for the god one personally believes in.

Confronting Unjustified Defenses

One legitimate objection to atheism is the assertion that believers in gods possess a kind of faith that atheists are unwilling to accept. However, this argument falls flat when considering the nature of faith. Faith, in the religious context, is often invoked as a form of belief held without evidence or despite contradictory evidence. In contrast, atheism is based on the rational choice not to believe in gods due to the absence of evidence. Thus, there is no need for a defense of atheism in the same way there is a need to defend the existence of a god.

Proof and Evidence

Many people mistakenly believe that belief in a god is equivalent to feeling it in their heart or just knowing it. However, the demand for proof, not mere feeling, should apply to all claims, including those made about the existence of gods. The assertion that a god exists should be backed by concrete, reliable evidence, such as that which is available for the physical world. Without such evidence, the argument for the existence of a god is less about a belief and more about a lack of evidence.

Why Atheism Requires No Defense

Atheism is not a position to be defended. It is a rational choice made from the absence of evidence for the existence of deities. This choice is not irrational or unjustified. Similarly, one is not required to believe in dragons, vampires, werewolves, or fairies due to a lack of credible evidence for their existence. The same principle applies to gods. There is simply no empirical or reasonable basis for their existence, which makes the choice to not believe in them a rational one.

Conclusion

Atheism, therefore, is not a position that needs to be defended. It is a logical stance based on the absence of credible evidence for the existence of deities. The non-belief in gods or deities is a natural and reasonable response to the lack of evidence, making the concept of defending atheism somewhat strange and unnecessary.