Your stance on Hard Atheism

[dyresand]

I'm and atheist atheist i have enough reason that there isn't a god or one could exist. there is no logical claims for one to exist except the delusional arguments coming out of an ancient book. anything having to do with life or a "soul" in reality what makes us human is electrical pulses in the brain.

[psychoslice]

Far as I know, atheism is simply not havening a belief in god, I cannot see how that could be hard, or made hard.

[dyresand]

Far as I know, atheism is simply not havening a belief in god, I cannot see how that could be hard, or made hard.

to many flavors of atheist. there is about 17 different flavors.
i am the basic vanilla agnostic and gnostic is like chocolate.
negative being a weak tasting flavor of ice milk. Closet atheist
no one knows the flavor maybe mint definitely mint.

[Whateverist]

Well at least you give me something to work with. Most people babble on about gods as if anyone really knew what they were. I do think your definition is inadequate to differentiate gods from advanced races of aliens. Or suppose there was a being of gigantic proportions whose scat consisted of galaxies? Would that count as a creator god by your reckoning?

Anyway I voted no to the poll. I personally am a very soft and accommodating atheist. I have as little belief in gods as anyone else but I have less settled opinions about what other people ought to believe and what they ought to base that on. That goes for hard atheists as well as hard theists. I don't see where I'm in any position to say either of them is whack. My choice is to take people as they come .. you're all so fascinating.

Yes, both of those things would qualify as gods in my book. The scat monster might still fall under the heading of a lower-case god. If it scatted universes, maybe, but of course that's just a matter of degree.

And what would you regard the proper stance to take toward a 'creature' that fits your description for godliness? Worship? Compliance?

Regarding the galaxy scat critter I'd say that the galaxies emerge as singularities and coalesce into the galaxies we see today over time. Now such a vast creature would probably eat even less often than a python and hence not need to scat galaxies all that often. Now for this one it could truly be said that its shit is our bread and butter .. and everything else. Still, I'm not inclined to toss its salad .. even if I were enlarged enough to make that possible.

[psychoslice]

Far as I know, atheism is simply not havening a belief in god, I cannot see how that could be hard, or made hard.

to many flavors of atheist. there is about 17 different flavors.
i am the basic vanilla agnostic and gnostic is like chocolate.
negative being a weak tasting flavor of ice milk. Closet atheist
no one knows the flavor maybe mint definitely mint.

I think if you don't believe in a personal god, then you are an atheist, you cannot be a little bit atheist, its either your an atheist or not.

[Jackalope]

Absent a firm definition of what "hard atheism" (not to mention god(s)) means, the question is incoherent and I won't be answering the poll.

I will say this: the more properties one assigns to god(s), the far less potential irrationality is possible with the gnostic position.

I myself am an ignostic apatheist.

[Aoi Magi]

trmof - This discussion, debate or whatever this is supposed to be, started with you asking "is hard atheism irrational?", without you actually defining what you meant by "hard atheism". Based on the definition of "hard atheism" from google, and clarification in your later posts, it seems you are talking about "positive atheism", and that is NOT irrational, as it is a deduced fact from our current understanding of the world.

Then you proceeded to somehow indicate positive atheism is the same as "militant atheism" and some of the idiot sociopaths were sociopaths due to atheism, and thus positive atheists are more dangerous than religious people. So I am asking for proof on this point. I already told you how religion has been an active component behind many wars, terrorism e.t.c, however you are yet to show how atheism has actively caused any major atrocity. Stop dancing around the point.

We have already seen morality samples in religion, and how they stack up against man made laws. Take a look at the slaves thing, did religion stop that barbarism or did man? Look at charity, for religious people, free food at a church for the homeless means going through a brainwashing session first, atheists do it without any catch, which is more moral? Religion causes people to act morally out of fear of god, atheists act morally because they want to, which one is better? Religion makes one wait for miracles, science actively creates miracles, which one is more practical?

[Alex K]

I doubt whether anybodies beliefs have anything to do with their treatment of anybody. Except for mine, of course. I'm much more polite than the vast majority of other commenters.

Only if you only measure politeness by the language used. You are implying all kinds nasty things about atheists and waste peoples time by refusing to properly clarify your terms straight away. That's impolite.

[fr0d0]

I know there is/are God/gods to the same degree that I know there is no elephant in my refrigerator. I do not claim this knowledge is absolute and unqualified as I do not believe in the possibility of such knowledge (the unknown unknowns can only be unknown) hence below some noise level, all such claims are agnostic. But within the limits of my instrumentation and within conventions of common discourse, I know there is no elephant in my refrigerator and know it is rational to believe there is/are God/gods.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You 'know' no such thing. You merely believe it. Why? Because there are explanations for the phenomena that cause you to believe in God that are equally as good as the God-derived explanations. When you're faced with two equal sets of explanations and opt for one over the other (especially in view of lack of evidence for Godism and in spite of the overwhelmingly strong evidentiary support for naturalistic explanations) you've opted for belief over knowledge. Epistomologically, that's always been a weak stance to take.

That being said, I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief. That is to say, I don't think you're having us on or anything of that sort. I think you hold your beliefs deeply and seriously but at they end of the day, that's all they are - beliefs, not knowledge.

Boru

I may have already asked you before in another thread, but what would God have to do to prove to you that he exists? How high is your bar set.

Higher than yours, it would seem.

My god believes in the free exchange of information.

Genesis 2:17

FFS. You guys ever actually read this book you base your life around or what?