Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Minimalist]

Hard Atheism is irrational at best. They say God does not exist without an iota of proof.

The duty to prove the existence of your fairy sky daddy is yours. We do not have to prove it does not exist.

Only total idiot theistic morons think like you do.

[trmof]

I edited that last post all to hell trying to fix it's formatting.

[abaris]

Isaiah 45:5. The Hebrew word here is YHWH. Why it was translated as Lord is anybody's guess.

Well yeah. it is indeed everybody's guess. It has been translated and copied about a thousand times.

But how about
Isaiah 45:5: I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

It made it's way into the bible, so how about christian polytheism?

[trmof]

Hard Atheism is irrational at best. They say God does not exist without an iota of proof.

The duty to prove the existence of your fairy sky daddy is yours. We do not have to prove it does not exist.

Only total idiot theistic morons think like you do.

You misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying they make a claim about the factuality of God's POSSIBLE existence without any proof. And no, hard atheists also believe things based on no evidence, that is the entire point of the thread. If you don't know the difference between hard atheism and agnostic atheism, why are you commenting on it?

---

Isaiah 45:5. The Hebrew word here is YHWH. Why it was translated as Lord is anybody's guess.

Well yeah. it is indeed everybody's guess. It has been translated and copied about a thousand times.

But how about
Isaiah 45:5: I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

It made it's way into the bible, so how about christian polytheism?

As I said before, in context in the original Hebrew, it could be interpreted as the creator God denying the divinity of lesser gods.

---

Already defined those earlier.

Just went through the thread, you didn't. All you said is that they would possess powers incomprehensible to humans. Is that all you got?

Yes, that is my definition. What is your problem with it?

[Minimalist]

Bullshit. Do you seriously think that is the first time such an absurd argument has been advanced?

It's so old that it's been reduced to a cartoon.

[trmof]

Let me repost this again for Boru, as it got lost in that edited post back there.:

I have a non-sarcastic question: If perfect bionic eyes existed or full eye transplants were possible, and a person you never met contacted you out of the blue and said God told them to purchase you a new eye, would you consider this evidence of the existence of God?

[FatAndFaithless]

The possibility of a God has yet to be proven, let alone an affirmative existence of one.

[Dystopia]

You misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying they make a claim about the factuality of God's POSSIBLE existence without any proof. And no, hard atheists also believe things based on no evidence, that is the entire point of the thread. If you don't know the difference between hard atheism and agnostic atheism, why are you commenting on it?

I believe gods do not exist based on the complete lack of evidence, just like I believe Santa Klaus do not exist. Come on prove me Santa Klaus doesn't exist, or are you going to say I don't know if Santa exists or not? See how moronic that sounds? Now apply it to god. I believe god doesn't exist as much as I believe gravity is real. I could be wrong, but no one has proved me so. Still waiting.

In this case, the no evidence is the reason for gnostic atheism - Stop using the word hard and replace it by strong, it fits the terminology better.

[trmof]

Bullshit. Do you seriously think that is the first time such an absurd argument has been advanced?

It's so old that it's been reduced to a cartoon.

I believe you will find you are in the minority among atheists on this issue.

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe you'll find you don't know jack shit about what atheists believe.