Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Jackalope]

Absent a firm definition of what "hard atheism" (not to mention god(s)) means, the question is incoherent and I won't be answering the poll.

You're joking right?

The definition is too firm for you to make a stance, and if it were any looser it would become less coherent for you?

No. The definition is *absent*. *Without* a definition the question is incoherent.

Did I get that right?

Apparently not in the way intended. :p

[Esquilax]

To say that you disbelieve because there is no evidence, when such evidence is logically impossible, is not rational.

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?

[Mudhammam]

That does not mean God has not provided sufficient proof to them. I would fall into that category. God has proven his existence to me in a way which I can not adequately describe to another person, a way which is metaphysical, transcendent, and glorious beyond words, and it should be no surprise that I wish others to experience the same thing. If you choose not to believe me then that is fine, but I would hope that you would believe my intentions are pure.

- Said every single gullible person who wanted to feel justified in their claims but couldn't give sufficient reason or evidence who's ever lived.

[fr0d0]

To say that you disbelieve because there is no evidence, when such evidence is logically impossible, is not rational.

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?

---

No. The definition is *absent*. *Without* a definition the question is incoherent.

Well I saw at least two. Hard atheist: someone who knows for sure that God doesn't exist.

[Jenny A]

To say that you disbelieve because there is no evidence, when such evidence is logically impossible, is not rational.

There was a bear at my campsite It had the power to create the forest surrounding the campsite and the power to erase all evidence of that creation and of it's own existence. It wants me to believe without evidence, to trust that it is there and was protecting my campsite and always will protect my campsite. If I believe it will protect my campsite. It is not recordable by camera, seismograph, radar, x-ray or any other equipment unless it chooses to be so. It does not choose to be so. My camp space is not statistically safer than any other. When I see it, it is a bear. When my friend sees it, it's a lion. I feel safer knowing it is there.

No evidence of my bear is rationally possible as it has the power to erase all evidence. Is it rational to not to believe in my bear? Because I'm really sure you don't.

More simply, if something cannot be proven by empirical evidence and logic, than not only is it rational to believe that that something doesn't exist, it does not matter if it exists since it does not affect the real world.

[abaris]

No evidence of my bear is rationally possible as it has the power to erase all evidence. Is it rational to not to believe in my bear? Because I'm really sure you don't.

And yet, your tale is more credible than most god stories. Bears actually exist. you don't have to prove the existence of bears, you only have to prove the existence of your special bear.

[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!

[fr0d0]

if something cannot be proven by empirical evidence and logic, than not only is it rational to believe that that something doesn't exist, it does not matter if it exists since it does not affect the real world.

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

[Jenny A]

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?

Click on the green arrow below and you'll find where you said it to me:

To say that you disbelieve because there is no evidence, when such evidence is logically impossible, is not rational.

If it's not what you meant say so, and we'll start discussing whatever it is you really meant to say.

[abaris]

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

How so?