Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Esquilax]

So how does the position, "there can be no evidence for god, therefore no evidence of god is required," get to be more rational than disbelief?

I'm sorry, I searched everywhere to try and find where someone said that and drew a blank. Could you kindly link me to the totally unrelated content please?

You said that, in the part that I quoted: you say that to disbelieve because of a lack of evidence is irrational, because such evidence isn't possible. My response is perfectly justified: I wasn't aware that the absence of evidence was okay just because evidence of this specific thing is impossible, because the last time I checked the only thing for which evidence was impossible was something that does not exist.

To be clear, you're the one saying that evidence is impossible, but if I'm confused that's probably your fault, given that the sentence just before that in the post I quoted you said that evidence was possible. Contradictions aside, your last sentence there stuck out to me, is all; I've heard it before, this claim that it's unreasonable to expect evidence for god because that's impossible, as though the theist's inability to shoulder even a rudimentary burden of proof was somehow everyone else's problem. It's the kind of claim you can make to justify anything, really: did you know that evidence of sentient space dildos is impossible?

That makes disbelieving in them irrational!