Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Only atheists do this, and they/we only do it when confronted with a god claim. I wonder why. We are explicitly giving special credit to the specific idea a god exists when we say we are agnostic. And I think thats a stupid thing to do.

It's not special credit that we're giving. People just never ask if leprechauns are logically conceivable or how we know there are no magical flying unicorns.

There are plenty of people who DO ask questions like that about Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions, though. And the same people who are careful how they answer questions about gods or God tend to be careful about how they answer those questions as well. It's not an atheist trait, it's a trait of rational skeptics.

---

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god?

I certainly have. Personally I am agnostic about many things, It's just that the word has a specific religious connotation that makes it simpler to say (for ease of communication) 'I don't know' in most similar cases. I don't know if any of the current proposals for the origin of the universe are accurate. I can as easily say I'm agnostic about it.

I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it.

What do you think the significance of using the phrase 'I don't know' instead of 'I'm agnostic about that' is? Do you think atheists say they're agnostic more than agnostic theists, do?

Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

No.

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism.

Is that not a sufficient reason to claim it, then?

When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself.

And don't theists often press us for answers on specific question on the subject?

But I don't label myself that way up front.

That's fine for you. Why do you have a problem with me cutting to the chase before the merry-go-round of the theist trying to guesstimate my position?

Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

That's nice, but in matters of the existence of God or gods, things tend to get epistemological quickly. It's not a practical matter, it's a very hypothetical one. It's philosophy, not grocery shopping.

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

And what do you say to someone who asks you how you know you're not a brain in a jar?

There's a third option however: treating the evidenceless claims of god just the same as all other evidenceless claims. It's Hitchens razor really.

Dismiss them as inadequately supported rather than certainly false?

---

It pisses off the religionist freaks.

Does it? How does that work? (I'm serious)

I suppose they stumble over their misconception that all atheists are certain there is no God.

---

People who don't think hard atheism is irrational. To think that is to align with hard atheism. You can't agree with that and not be a gnostic atheist. Even though I'm fascinated with the stance, I am in no doubt that it's irrational.

Fascinated with the stance of 'hard atheism' or fascinated with the stance that someone can think a position isn't necessarily irrational without automatically agreeing with it?

Ah OK.

That's how it struck me, at any rate. There seemed to be a disconnect between 'hard atheism' is 'gnostic atheism' and all the 'hard atheists do this and say that' stuff.