Your stance on Hard Atheism

[trmof]

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed. They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

[Jenny A]

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?

Umm yeah? What was the process. Hint: A/S/K is not a logical or empirical process.

[fr0d0]

You said that

Please try to engage your brain esq. I was addressing a particular type of evidence that was exactly prompted. I didn't say "there can be no evidence for God", for there clearly can be, and I have repeatedly and at length spelled this out to you. Now please refrain from acting the imbecile, as I'm forced to look at your diatribe.,

[Jenny A]

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed. They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

Dear lord (pardon the expression) but do you think your average atheist cares enough about the question to participate in an atheist forum? We aren't a representative sample. And given how oddly your poll is worded it's unlikely that even half of your respondents knew what you meant. Not to mention that you don't have anywhere near the number of respondents necessary for the data to mean anything at all even if we were representative and question was coherent. Sheeesh

[fr0d0]

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

Umm yeah? What was the process. Hint: A/S/K is not a logical or empirical process.

I'm not willing to change the subject and be drawn into a pointless discussion with you. I've even explained it to you already. Carrying on with this discussion... what else have you got? I will assume nothing.

---

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed. They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

10 is indeed a significant number

[Esquilax]

Please try to engage your brain esq. I was addressing a particular type of evidence that was exactly prompted. I didn't say "there can be no evidence for God", for there clearly can be, and I have repeatedly and at length spelled this out to you. Now please refrain from acting the imbecile, as I'm forced to look at your diatribe.,

No, what you've done is asserted repeatedly that you have sufficient evidence and justification to believe in god, evidence that you have grown remarkably evasive about demonstrating or even explaining when the question is put to you. Then, when atheists start asking for the sort of evidence that one should realistically be able to expect from anything that really exists, you chide them, explaining that such easily attainable evidence for any other thing is completely impossible for the pervasive lord of the universe.

In essence, you're like any other run of the mill theist: so confident in your reasons for belief right up until the possibility that they might be questioned shows up. Then, it's just haughty dismissive arrogance as a cover for how afraid of opening up your beliefs to criticism you really are.

[The Valkyrie]

All atheists should be hard.

[Jenny A]

Umm yeah? What was the process. Hint: A/S/K is not a logical or empirical process.

I'm not willing to change the subject and be drawn into a pointless discussion with you. I've even explained it to you already. Carrying on with this discussion... what else have you got? I will assume nothing.

You said you have a logical reason for believing in god. Asked to pony up, you say it's pointless. If it's A/S/K, I agree it's pointless, but don't claim it's logical.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well I think this thread has sufficient response to demonstrate that hard, gnostic, positive (and therefore irrational) atheists are not a tiny minority as several people have claimed. They are in fact a very vocal and significant contingent, and, if the poll is any indication, quite possibly a majority. Thank you, your participation has been most helpful.

I think you're overlooking the phenomenon of self-selection, which skews polls.

I didn't answer your poll, and I know of at least one other agnostic atheist in this thread who hasn't, for largely the same reason.

Loudness does not equal a majority.

[Mudhammam]

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

What you're basically asserting is that you discovered God similarly to how one discovers that 2+2=4. Somehow I have the creeping suspicion that a great many theologians, philosophers, and mystics might reproach you for having missed the point altogether. While no credible person would take trmof's religious experience as evidence for his particular claims about the metaphysics of reality, at least he's honest enough to admit that his faith is founded in subjectivity rather than fact or logic. Sorry bud, but logical processes don't produce objects, they organize the objects already known to exist (which involve empirical assertions).