Question for "Hard Atheists" - Do You Oppose Religion In General?

[Ace Otana]

Not reading the thread, but I do consider myself an anti-theist. I despise religion.

After looking through all the atrocities committed by the church/religion. I couldn't argue against you're stance on the matter.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

[LastPoet]

I think its a waste of time being anti-theist, since I think education is the way. I bash religionists not because they are, but because of what they say or do, not with the intent of diminuishing them, but perhaps in the futile hope THEY WILL FUCKING LISTEN!

[Angrboda]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
— Voltaire

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase of uncertain origin. It means "I believe because it is absurd" It is derived from a poorly remembered or misquoted passage in Tertullian's De Carne Christi defending the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism, which reads in the original Latin:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

Hunh. Well you learn something new every day. There goes the point I had in mind.

Anyway, I would build on Richard Feynman's idea, quoting:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers”. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.

To which I would only add that, there may be absolutes that are justifiable, but in the main, claims that 'X must exist' or 'X mustn't exist', as absolute claims, have likely departed from the path of reason. I don't see how a Christian, in all honesty, would characterize his belief in God as the idea that He "probably exists." You may draw your own conclusions from that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Then I guess Communism is a religion then.

Well,you've certainly made the strawman a favourite. It' getting a bit old.

[Minimalist]

You're thinking of Stalinism, which as a cult of personality was indistinguishable from a religion.

Kind of like jesusism....which is rampant in the bible belt.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I don't know how one can be "hard" in anything.
Obviously, being hardcore requires you to do things more than just in terms of words.

[Annik]

Not reading the thread, but I do consider myself an anti-theist. I despise religion.

I think you are so cool with your CMYK signature, fashionable facial hair and anti-theism. XD

I don't know how one can be "hard" in anything.
Obviously, being hardcore requires you to do things more than just in terms of words.

I debate people on the internet. I'm so hardcore! Lol

[Whateverist]

I don't see how a Christian, in all honesty, would characterize his belief in God as the idea that He "probably exists."

Yet every now and then you meet one. I imagine it would take someone who sees the lack of objective evidence for belief in God but decides, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, to believe anyway. A true leap of faith with the emphasis on the leaping. We all have to assume some things and my bias is to assume as little as possible, but I'm not ready to declare my bias as the gold standard.

I personally find these guys much more admirable than those who play lawyer with the bible. There is less self delusion going on and usually less proselytizing too, providing they can remain cognizant of their leap and not let it concretize into certainty.

[Panglossian]

By "hard" and "soft", I think you mean gnostic and agnostic. In which case, antitheism and gnostic atheism are two different things.

[Whateverist]

By "hard" and "soft", I think you mean gnostic and agnostic. In which case, antitheism and gnostic atheism are two different things.

I'm assuming that.