Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Whateverist]

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed. They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

Atheists are too diverse a population to characterize so simplistically. Atheists include everyone who doesn't hold that one irrational belief, the one about gods. Other than that we can vary between a Spock-like obsession with logic and rationality to a very touch-feely regard for the mysterious. We can be kind or cruel, tolerant or judgmental. Educated or ignorant. Insightful or thick. There is no atheist-type. Every personality type is capable of not believing in gods.

[Dystopia]

I think the OP may be confusing gnostic atheism and anti-theism... You see, anti-theism is the expression commonly used to describe those "vocal" atheists who bash religion and criticize the god idea - But I believe that, just like most atheists are agnostics, most anti-theists will also be agnostic - In my case, I'm a gnostic atheist and an anti-theist to an extent - But most people here who are anti-theists describe themselves as agnostic atheists - Therefore, the fact someone is a gnostic atheist who makes a positive claim about god not existing, such as myself, doesn't correlate or correspond with anti-theism, aggressiveness and all the other characteristics you are indirectly labelling people like me (and other few members of this forum who describe themselves as gnostic atheists) - I could be a gnostic atheist and not an anti-theist.

Your ignorance on the subject doesn't prove you're right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I reached belief in God through logical process, therefore I pass your test. Got anything else?

What use has faith for logic at all?

Isn't appealing to logic a tacit admission of insufficient faith?

[dyresand]

I reached belief in God through logical process, therefore I pass your test. Got anything else?

What use has faith for logic at all?

Isn't appealing to logic a tacit admission of insufficient faith?

Faith has not logic its saying fuck the logic if i have enough
faith it will happen. Logic says no it won't happen.
we cannot faith and have something happen.
its like you jump out of helicopter and you don't have
a parachute. you have use the faith power you never hit the ground.
or a guy has no money he faiths in 1 million dollars. but this is reality if
something like that were possible people would faith god into existence. every known god into existence.

[fr0d0]

Please try to engage your brain esq. I was addressing a particular type of evidence that was exactly prompted. I didn't say "there can be no evidence for God", for there clearly can be, and I have repeatedly and at length spelled this out to you. Now please refrain from acting the imbecile, as I'm forced to look at your diatribe.,

No, what you've done is asserted repeatedly that you have sufficient evidence and justification to believe in god, evidence that you have grown remarkably evasive about demonstrating or even explaining when the question is put to you. Then, when atheists start asking for the sort of evidence that one should realistically be able to expect from anything that really exists, you chide them, explaining that such easily attainable evidence for any other thing is completely impossible for the pervasive lord of the universe.

In essence, you're like any other run of the mill theist: so confident in your reasons for belief right up until the possibility that they might be questioned shows up. Then, it's just haughty dismissive arrogance as a cover for how afraid of opening up your beliefs to criticism you really are.

Not again with the lies esq. I'm really tired of your trolling.

If you want to engage, be a grown up and address the subject. Your posturing is noise to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Faith has not logic its saying fuck the logic if i have enough
faith it will happen. Logic says no it won't happen.
we cannot faith and have something happen.
its like you jump out of helicopter and you don't have
a parachute. you have use the faith power you never hit the ground.
or a guy has no money he faiths in 1 million dollars. but this is reality if
something like that were possible people would faith god into existence. every known god into existence.

It's deeper than that. The nature of Christian belief is such that faith is held to be most important, so much so that faith itself is enough to gain access to Paradise. Faith in God is enough.

Any Christian appealing to logic, or evidence, is silently admitting that their faith wasn't enough to see them through, that they had to search for other supports for their beliefs -- or, as in this case, that their belief is not faith at all (to which I say bullshit.)

[fr0d0]

I'm not willing to change the subject and be drawn into a pointless discussion with you. I've even explained it to you already. Carrying on with this discussion... what else have you got? I will assume nothing.

You said you have a logical reason for believing in god. Asked to pony up, you say it's pointless. If it's A/S/K, I agree it's pointless, but don't claim it's logical.

Why should I pony up? Again. This is not the subject here. The subject is: if one has logical and rational reasons for belief. Just because another (you) lacks understanding does not disqualify that fact.

I've never mentioned a/s/k. I don't see how that has any relevance to this discussion, or the logical foundation to belief. You're not even on subject. You're being a dunce. That's what fundamentalism buys you.

---

I think the OP may be confusing gnostic atheism and anti-theism... You see, anti-theism is the expression commonly used to describe those "vocal" atheists who bash religion and criticize the god idea - But I believe that, just like most atheists are agnostics, most anti-theists will also be agnostic - In my case, I'm a gnostic atheist and an anti-theist to an extent - But most people here who are anti-theists describe themselves as agnostic atheists - Therefore, the fact someone is a gnostic atheist who makes a positive claim about god not existing, such as myself, doesn't correlate or correspond with anti-theism, aggressiveness and all the other characteristics you are indirectly labelling people like me (and other few members of this forum who describe themselves as gnostic atheists) - I could be a gnostic atheist and not an anti-theist.

Your ignorance on the subject doesn't prove you're right.

That would be true if the op hadn't clearly defined gnostic atheism as opposed to anti theism. One up to you for ignorance about the thread

---

you don't understand the terms involved. If you are willing to concede that a god or gods could possibly exist, then you are an agnostic atheist. If you consider it a fact that no such thing does or can exist, then you are a hard atheist or gnostic atheist.

[Whateverist]

I reached belief in God through logical process, ..

The only thing that worked for me was acid. But it didn't last.

[genkaus]

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed.

Invalid conclusion. Being a gnostic atheist is not the same as being irrational.

They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

Invalid conclusion. You don't have to be a gnostic atheist yourself to acknowledge that gnostic atheism may be rational.

[Cato]

They say God does not exist without an iota of proof.

Are you catching on, because this is precisely how it works. Not having an iota of proof of god leads to the conclusion that there is no god.