Question for "Hard Atheists" - Do You Oppose Religion In General?

[Forsaken]

If you use religion as a platform to judge others, dictate how others should behave, and enjoy double-standards...then yes, I oppose religion.
If you use your religion within the confines of your own home or within your own circle of religionists, then I have no problems with it.

[Angrboda]

Divide and conquer.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm currently in a discussion on another message board regarding the definition of "atheist" with a lady who is saying that those we call "hard atheists" (who believe no God(s) exist) shouldn't be called atheists at all, but are really "anti-theists". She is essentially arguing that the word "atheist" refers only to "soft atheists" (those who don't believe God(s) exists, but don't positively believe God(s) do not exist).

She is an ignoramus. Atheism by definition,is about belief. No other attitudes or behaviours are implied.

A hard theist may or may not also be anti-theist. Same goes for soft atheists.

I'm an agnostic atheists,and not anti-theist per se. I'm indifferent about the personal superstitions of others until they get in my face. However, I'm anti organised religion,with its dogma, parasitic clergy,obscene wealth, abuse of power and purblind arrogance of claiming exclusive truth.The oldest and biggest,the Catholic church has managed to do more harm to humanity than the rest of the Abrahamic faiths combined.

[Whateverist]

I'm not a hard atheist but I have absolutely no belief in gods. I'm down with theists if they're agnostic. Heck, I probably have more in common with an agnostic theist than I do with a gnostic atheist.

I have no problem with religion. In the hands of the right person it can probably enhance who they are. Unfortunately most Christians get all smug about the bible. They have much more faith in the bible than they do in God. Faith requires humility which certainty leaves no room for. So most Christians are faithless.

[KichigaiNeko]

Hard/ Soft/ Indifferent.....just WTF are you guys on??

I would refer you to padraic's post (#13) This is pretty much the standard for atheists GENERALLY speaking. Your friend is an idiot and has no understanding.

by the way david8

[NoMoreFaith]

I always thought that a Hard Atheist is someone who says "There is DEFINITELY without a shadow of a doubt no supernatural god(s)", while a soft atheist is one who says "It is incredibly improbable that god(s) exists".

In light of this, I can't say I consider one more likely that the other to be anti-theist.

I would call myself a soft atheist merely because I am suspect of any absolute statement of truth, but I am definitely mildly anti-theist if the brand of theism is promoting something nasty (which is probably a longer list than the OP's).

[Whateverist]

Hard/ Soft/ Indifferent.....just WTF are you guys on??

I would refer you to padraic's post (#13) This is pretty much the standard for atheists GENERALLY speaking. Your friend is an idiot and has no understanding.

by the way david8

My Mrs. isn't at all indifferent about whether its hard or soft. What are we on about in this thread?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure how to classify myself. I'm sure the Abrahamic pile of omnis doesn't exist, less sure about 'small gods' although I haven't an ounce of belief in any of them. I'm a secularist and don't want government to mess with religion more than it absolutely has to, whether to promote or suppress. I'm a 'Gary Johnson libertarian' and believe in everyone's right of conscience. I'm a Unitarian and believe religion doesn't have to be dogmatic.

I don't see a firm connection between how 'hard' your atheism is and how against religion you are. It's more of an epistemological issue, isn't it?

[Annik]

As an add-on, I just want to say that raising your children religiously is a gross limitation of personal choice (Hovik had a shower epiphany recently and I completely agree with his reasoning. For more on that subject, I'd have to ask him to post). In addition, religion is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is not something I am known for tolerating.

[Brian37]

I don't like the question posed in the title of the thread. Context matters so it depends upon what situation we are "opposing" .

I cannot oppose human nature, and our evolution will always produce irrational thoughts and claims, because evolution's goal is only getting to the point of reproduction, it will still produce people with delusions.

And since I myself value my own rights in the freedom to say what I want, in that context it would be unwise for me to oppose the rights of others, including religion. Strictly from a human rights context, it would not be pragmatic to oppress others and not allow them to make claims I find absurd, because I myself want the right to challenge those claims, which many theists would not want me to do.

BUT, as far as the intrusion religion can have on things like education and science and politics, I appose it when those who advocate it want taboo status where others are expected to sit at the back of the bus and never challenge them. I appose special favoritism by government that puts one group above or more special than another.

AND then there is the context of credibility of ANY religious claim. I do oppose deity claims from a logical and scientific standpoint because there is simply no evidence for such claims.

So it depends what we are "opposing".