Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

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, that would be silly. It would only be evidence of the existence of people who think God tells them to do things.

For which claim did I provide no evidence?

I think probably the notion that 'hard atheism' somehow motivates people to commit genocide. You don't even have reasonable evidence that any of the 'genociders' you're talking about were 'hard atheists'. Anti-theists might be a fair cop, but a 'soft atheist' can be an anti-theist too. Atheism isn't an ideology, it's not accepting the proposition that gods are real. No matter how sure you are that you're right about that, 'kill the believers' is not connected to it. Stalin was a power-mad paranoid dictator with greater access to means of murdering millions than any previous power-mad paranoid dictator. It's a great argument against any form of totalitarian government, a poor argument against atheism. It would be a poor argument against theism had Stalin been a theist. However, it might be a good argument against the form of religion that Stalin practiced, just as it's a good argument against the form of political ideology that Stalin practiced.

Fair enough, if you are able to provide me with evidence of my own motivations, I will provide you with evidence of their motivations.

Your motivation is to troll. The evidence is the posts you have made here clearly intended to incite anger among people who identify with a certain demographic that you're villifying. And that really is the most charitable interpretation.

I believe you will find you are in the minority among atheists on this issue.

Odd. I often find myself in the company of atheists, and my experience is that he is in the vast majority of atheists on this issue.

---

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?

Considered as gods, sure, but rightfully considered as gods? So time-travellers, advanced aliens, people who invent a new futuristic gadget...all actual gods? If a technician at a particle physics lab triggers a new universe, she would actually be God (at least of that universe)?

No, I don't think it's a useful definition. It's too inclusive. I suggest that the powers of a god should be supernatural as well as amazing. Else there's no difference between a real god and a pretender. It could all be showmanship.