Your stance on Hard Atheism

[trmof]

You misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying they make a claim about the factuality of God's POSSIBLE existence without any proof. And no, hard atheists also believe things based on no evidence, that is the entire point of the thread. If you don't know the difference between hard atheism and agnostic atheism, why are you commenting on it?

I believe gods do not exist based on the complete lack of evidence, just like I believe Santa Klaus do not exist. Come on prove me Santa Klaus doesn't exist, or are you going to say I don't know if Santa exists or not? See how moronic that sounds? Now apply it to god. I believe god doesn't exist as much as I believe gravity is real. I could be wrong, but no one has proved me so. Still waiting.

Do you believe it is absolutely impossible for a being like Santa to exist? If so, you need to take an Intro to Philosophy class.

[FatAndFaithless]

Read what he said. He said he doesn't believe that it exists, that's not the same as claiming it's impossible. Take an intro to reading comprehension and stop talking down to us.

[trmof]

I believe you'll find you don't know jack shit about what atheists believe.

Yes, I do. There are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. The majority are agnostic atheists, the minority are gnostic atheists.

I believe you will find you know almost nothing about the Bible, but that is a much more complicated subject.

[Alex K]

Just went through the thread, you didn't. All you said is that they would possess powers incomprehensible to humans. Is that all you got?

Yes, that is my definition. What is your problem with it?

That we ourselves would qualify from the perspective of people a mere 150 years ago. It is a ridiculously weak definition. Noone would deny it, and it is not a useful definition of gods.

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't give two shits what the bible says, its irrelevant to the possibility of a god existing.

[trmof]

Read what he said. He said he doesn't believe that it exists, that's not the same as claiming it's impossible. Take an intro to reading comprehension and stop talking down to us.

Then he is an agnostic atheist, and seems to be very confused about what the relevant terms mean, all of which have been previously defined in the thread. I would posit the record shows that both he and you lack reading comprehension. If it sounds like I am talking down to you that is simply because that's what it sounds like when you encounter someone smarter than yourself.

[FatAndFaithless]

Mhm. Welcome to the forum, enjoy your stay.

[trmof]

Yes, that is my definition. What is your problem with it?

That we ourselves would qualify from the perspective of people a mere 150 years ago. It is a ridiculously weak definition. Noone would deny it, and it is not a useful definition of gods.

Yes, if we invented time travel and traveled 150 years into the past, we would rightfully be seen as gods and could probably convince people to worship us. How is that not useful definition?

---

Mhm. Welcome to the forum, enjoy your stay.

Thank you. Nice meeting you.

[Alex K]

That we ourselves would qualify from the perspective of people a mere 150 years ago. It is a ridiculously weak definition. Noone would deny it, and it is not a useful definition of gods.

Yes, if we invented time travel and traveled 150 years into the past, we would rightfully be seen as gods and could probably convince people to worship us. How is that not useful definition?

Because if we qualify,it is not a concept of anything qualitatively new.I daresay noone here would pronounce such a thing an impossibility, yet it has little to do with what is commonly meant by a god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let me repost this again for Boru, as it got lost in that edited post back there.:

I have a non-sarcastic question: If perfect bionic eyes existed or full eye transplants were possible, and a person you never met contacted you out of the blue and said God told them to purchase you a new eye, would you consider this evidence of the existence of God?

No. I would consider it evidence that my benefactor believed in God, but his simply saying so doesn't veridicate his claim. He might, for instance, as easily have told me that a pot of tea told him to buy me the eyes. In no case would I accept what he said as true, simply because he said it.

Boru