Your stance on Hard Atheism

[fr0d0]

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.

You're joking right?

The definition is too firm for you to make a stance, and if it were any looser it would become less coherent for you? Did I get that right?

[Lemonvariable72]

Trmof, I believe I have heard of your kind of proof before, and let me make you aware of this. Preachers, especially evangelical preachers have been using hypnotic techniques on congregations for years, both knowingly and unknowingly. And when you have a audience that already has such a high suspension of disbelief, combined with your position of trust and authority, you can basically make them believe/feel anything. How do you think they get people to drink gasoline thinking its pineapple juice? You can also use hypnosis to self induce visions and all sorts of crazy shit. I did it once, had a vision of a bird of prey flying at me through my closed eyelids.
I'm not trying to demean your experience, as you have not shared the personal detials. However if I can induce a girl to orgasm through hypnosis then I would find it hard to explain why it would not be able to account for Christian spiritual experiences. That would make for some fascinating experimentation.

---

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.

You're joking right?

The definition is too firm for you to make a stance, and if it were any looser it would become less coherent for you? Did I get that right?

I'm sorry fro do, but all the sexual indeundos were too much.

[Chas]

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.

The difference is that you have evidence that there is no elephant in your refrigerator but you have no evidence that there is any god.

Believing without evidence is not rational.

[Mister Agenda]

Firstly, your "Religious Views" are: Anti-theist, which would imply that you would be against a god even if you knew for sure that it existed.

You're very good on the terminology, and have obviously taken the trouble to educate yourself on who you're talking to. Thanks for that, it's actually fairly unusual for someone who is new here and a Christian to have such a good grasp of our position already.

I'm going to pick a nit on 'anti-theist' though. It would be more inclusive to say an anti-theist believes people shouldn't be theists rather than that they would be against a god if it were real...I'm sure there are many like that; but the position named is against theism, belief in any gods, rather than against gods themselves. Most anti-theists would cease being atheists if a god was shown to exist, and I think for many of them, whether they were against that god would depend on its nature.

[LastPoet]

Usually, my wife when nude or undressing makes me a hard atheist. Does that count?

[JuliaL]

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.

What instrumentation are you using and what is its current perceived output?

[Mister Agenda]

There is a small yet very vocal contingent of hard atheists who advocate for the genocide of all religious people.

I'm sure you can quote one who isn't a random internet troll, then.

From your statements I'm sure you would agree these people are fucking nuts.

Yep. I know hundreds of atheists in RL without ever hearing one of them advocate genocide. so I think you have a special gift for finding them.

I think it's high time for a more civilized dialogue between atheists and the religious, and while violent Christians are constantly condemned, there is much less acknowledgement of the danger of hard atheism.

Notice how you had to drop the word 'violent' before comparing hard atheists to Christians. Then note that certainty there is no God or gods does not have any connection to wanting theists killed. Then think about whether your approach actually contributes to a 'more civilized' dialogue.

For example, if the subject of Stalin or Mao and the millions of people they killed is brought up, it often leads to a "no true atheist" argument.

Stalin was an atheist. Stalin has as much in common with the average Western atheist because of their atheism as Osama bin Laden has with the average Western Christian because they're a theist, but Stalin was an atheist.

Mao is a bit trickier, as a (probably) Tibetan Buddhist.

---

Again, you're misusing the term 'athiest' - it isn't about certainty, it is about lack of belief.

Boru

I think he's got it right. He's using the odd term 'hard atheist' instead of strong, positive, or gnostic atheist; but he's not confusing agnostic atheism with gnostic atheism, he's making the distinction.

Though rather than having four terms for an atheist who is certain or claims knowledge of the nonexistence of any gods, I propose that we use the term 'hard atheist' for someone who is both a gnostic atheist and an anti-theist.

---

A-holes are A-holes, and they belong to every group, sect and community. There can be moderate and liberal A-holes too, but gnostic atheism isn't volent or irrational, and is nothing like religious fundamentalism.

When Gnostic Atheists have been placed in positions of power they were able to kill more people in one century than the entire number of people killed by all the world's religions up to that point. I would argue than an ideology that leads that allows such monsters as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others to do what they did without a hint of remorse is the more dangerous ideology.

And that ideology is communism, not 'hard atheism', which is not an ideology at all.

---

So why does Gabriel make an appearance and why does Jesus? Did god rent them out to a different franchise?

Maybe trmof's God is not the God of Abraham? You could make a case that the personality flip between the Old and New Testaments indicates a change in gods. The Jews and Muslims are still worshipping Yahweh (also known as Allah), and the Christians are worshiping the new guy; though most of them don't know it.

Just trying to make trmof's narrative coherent.

---

Because their god is a liar who's trying to ride on the real one's coattails.

Yeah sure - and pigs might fly.

You still hold the opinion that many christians believe in the existence of many gods? For your convenience I post that bible quote once again. Isaiah 45:5: I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

How does that compute exactly?

Christians are on shaky grounds when it comes to claiming monotheism, given the trinity and the importance placed on Satan in many denominations.

---

There are atheists alive today who would do exactly the same sort of thing if given power, or if they seized it. The atheist political group the Tamil Tigers was responsible for more suicide bombings than any other group at the time of their disbanding. What would have happened if they had actually gained control of Sri Lanka?

For starters, they wouldn't have made Sri Lanka atheist because they weren't an atheist terrorist group, they were a secular political terrorist group, and secular isn't a synonym for 'atheist'. Most of the Tigers were Hindus, just like most other Tamils; though they probably had a higher percentage of atheists than the general Tamil population given their communist leanings. If they had been successful, there would now be a seperate homeland for the Tamil people. one of the largest and oldest ethnic groups to not have a homeland.

The upper-case one. As for patents, there is no mention in the Bible of any kind of patent law.

That's a pretty literal-minded response.

My god believes in the free exchange of information.

Your God is okay with other gods impersonating him would be the more cogent response. You really want to go with 'my God thinks deific identity theft is okay'?

[Whateverist]

I myself am an ignostic apatheist.

A brother from different mother? (You're the younger one so I get the bottom bunk.)

---

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.

And don't forget humble. You totally rock humility.

[Mister Agenda]

You are spouting a lot of nonsense, making unevidenced claims.

You are also delusional. So, there's that.

Hundreds of millions of people died under explicitly atheist regimes during the 20th century. If you think there is no evidence for that, I suggest you visit some mass graves some time.

If you think you're not a hypocrite for whining about atheists blaming Christianity for violence done in the name of Christianity, I suggest you visit a dictionary some time. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth with this 'civilzed dialogue' business.

Do you believe in the law of identity? Is 'A' always 'A'? Then you should get why it's stupid to compare atheism to anything but theism. Comparing communism and Christianity is comparing like things, comparing communism and theism is comparing unlike things. Christianity and communism are ideologies, one being religious and the other not. Atheism and theism are differing opinions on the topic of the existence of any deities. If you want to indite the atheists here and be intellectually honest about it, try comparing humanism (the moral philosophy most of us hold to) and Christianity...but you won't, because you're NOT intellectually honest and Christianity doesn't fare well in that comparison, now does it?

There is also nothing holding you back from murdering everybody in your way if that's what you want to do and you feel you can get away with it.

It's a little soon to be playing the 'atheists have no morals card' isn't it, mister 'I want a more civilized dialogue'? Isn't that a topic worthy of its own thread? I think you shouldn't derail your own thread, but it's a free country.

Tell me: Why was Stalin wrong to murder millions upon millions of people? He got away with it didn't he? So what was objectively wrong about it besides you not liking it?

If only there was a good being somewhere powerful enough to stop Stalin, eh? And if only he had learned not to murder people when he went to seminary. And if only the Russian Orthodox Church hadn't supported the Tsars to the point that so many of the common people came to hate them that it was easy for an anti-religion ideology like Stalinism to take root. If only so many Christians weren't utterly mystified when they wrack their brains trying to think of a reason we shouldn't murder people if we don't think God doesn't want us to.

And yes, there have been many atheist groups who used terrorism tactics throughout history.

You haven't named one yet. The Tigers weren't an atheist organization, they were a nationalist organization fighting for secession.

---

Again, hard atheism has been responsible for much more serious genocides than religion.

I see you like to use 'hard atheism' as a synonym for 'totalitarian communism'. You continue to impress on me that you're intellectually dishonest.

If you claim that this was not due to their atheism, I can simply turn around and claim the same about religion.

You could if atheism was the same kind of thing as religion. Atheism is the same kind of thing as theism: an opinion on the topic of the reality of gods. Communism is the same kind of thing as Christianity: an ideology that leads to specific acts in an effort to conform to that ideology. What you can claim the same thing about is theism: Mere theism never led anyone to kill anybody. And neither did mere atheism. Which puts you in a spot, because you REALLY, REALLY want us atheists (mostly humanists) to be responsible for genocides, and it must be frustrating for you that we don't feel any more connected to Stalin's crimes because we're atheists than you feel connected to the crimes of human-sacrificing Aztecs because you're a theist.

The fact is, hard atheists have no problem with genocide because they don't even consider the possibility of ever being held accountable.

What a fucking hypocrite you are, mister 'civilized dialogue'. And what a liar. You know we have a problem with genocide, that's why you're accusing us of not having a problem with it...you know it's hurtful. Did you just come here to troll? Because I refuse to believe you're really as much of a vacuous idiot as you're making yourself out to be. Your spelling is too good for me to accept that.

---

Hitchens makes a pretty compelling case that the so-called 'atheist regimes' are functionally no different than theocracies. This is particularly true in societies like Stalinist Russia and the current nightmare than is North Korea. They simply use a political figure in place of a divine one and oppressive bureaucracies in place of a traditional church. A 'cult of personality' is still a cult.

Boru

But an atheist cult. Except possibly the North Korean one. I have trouble reconciling 'they're atheists' with 'their dear leader's moods affect the weather and the old president was carried to a sacred mountain by a flock of cranes'.

---

I am not required to provide evidence for their motivations as no such evidence exists.

And in that situation, the only thing that should make you refrain from making claims about their 'hard atheism' is intellectual honesty. Lacking that, and apparently lacking any objective morality to tell you that it's wrong, you carry on with your baseless assertions.

---

Claiming factual knowledge that a god or gods cannot possibly exist. As irrational as that is, it is much more common than you would think.

Again, not as common as claiming factual knowledge that a particular god is real by theists. And it's irrational either way. Revelation has not been demonstrated to be a way of acquiring knowledge at all, let alone a good one.

And then there's me: I have factual knowledge that some gods don't exist, but lack factual knowledge that certain other proposed or potentially proposed gods exist. I'm a gnostic atheist towards Yahweh as portrayed in the Old Testament, but an agnostic atheist towards the God of deism, for instance.

---

This is a thread about hard atheism versus agnostic atheism. Those commenting on other subjects have derailed it and tried to turn the conversation around to attacking me and my religion. I have only reciprocated in kind when asked to. I will field no other replies that are off topic.

So now it was US who brought up Stalin and atheists not having a problem with genocide? If you won't stay on topic, why should we?

[RobbyPants]

I would like to get your general opinions on the validity of hard atheism. Specifically, I would like to get the views of the agnostic atheists.
...
And so a poll: Do you think that hard atheism is irrational considering that man can not know what he doesn't know?

Are you talking about gnostic atheism, then? The idea that you can claim to know no gods exist?

If so, then yes, I'd say that claim is irrational. Note: Outside of a discussion, when looking at how gnostic and agnostic atheists actually lead their lives and make decisions, neither will factor the existence of gods into their lives. So, functionally speaking, the two are pretty much the same; it's just in a debate where you will see a difference on the stances.

One says "I see no reason to believe in gods, so I don't" and the other says "There are no gods, so I don't believe in them". They're effectively getting to the same place, in a different way. I feel the first approach makes far more sense and is more honest.