Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Dystopia]

Correcting - I believe Santa does not exist, I am making a positive claim. I am a gnostic atheist. Our Christian friend was correct.

I've had introduction to philosophy - I cannot say I am 100% right, because there's a tiny chance I am not - But I can say that, with the current knowledge, I am capable of making the positive claim that god doesn't exist. I could also be wrong that gravity exists, it's just unlikely. Evidence agnostic atheists require to be a gnostic atheist is ridiculous. I don't need to be 100% certain of anything to have knowledge, otherwise everything I had been learning over the years could as well be wrong.

Well then I certainly hope you are just as open to uncertain evidence from God if he chooses to communicate his existence to you in that fashion. Most atheists, like Boru, are not.

I am open, I just find it unlikely. I am also open to the possibility that gravity doesn't exist.

[Chas]

You are joking, correct? You made a claim that they were motivated by atheism, you must support it or we will dismiss it.

I made no such claim, I merely pointed out that they were atheists. I made no comment on their motivations.

You said:
"When Gnostic Atheists have been placed in positions of power they were able to kill more people in one century than the entire number of people killed by all the world's religions up to that point. I would argue than an ideology that leads that allows such monsters as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others to do what they did without a hint of remorse is the more dangerous ideology. "

Would you like to reconsider your denial?

[trmof]

I made no such claim, I merely pointed out that they were atheists. I made no comment on their motivations.

You said:
"When Gnostic Atheists have been placed in positions of power they were able to kill more people in one century than the entire number of people killed by all the world's religions up to that point. I would argue than an ideology that leads that allows such monsters as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others to do what they did without a hint of remorse is the more dangerous ideology. "

Would you like to reconsider your denial?

No, the fact that they had no objective reason to value human life made it easier for them to kill people. That is not a motivation, it is just of fact of their ideology. If I had to guess I would say their motivations were personal power, wealth, and land, but since I am not a mind reader I am unable to comment on anyone's motivations but my own.

[Chas]

You said:
"When Gnostic Atheists have been placed in positions of power they were able to kill more people in one century than the entire number of people killed by all the world's religions up to that point. I would argue than an ideology that leads that allows such monsters as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others to do what they did without a hint of remorse is the more dangerous ideology. "

Would you like to reconsider your denial?

No, the fact that they had no objective reason to value human life made it easier for them to kill people. That is not a motivation, it is just of fact of their ideology. If I had to guess I would say their motivations were personal power, wealth, and land, but since I am not a mind reader I am unable to comment on anyone's motivations but my own.

So, you are not claiming they were motivated by atheism, but you are claiming that because they were atheists they could not feel remorse?

[trmof]

No, the fact that they had no objective reason to value human life made it easier for them to kill people. That is not a motivation, it is just of fact of their ideology. If I had to guess I would say their motivations were personal power, wealth, and land, but since I am not a mind reader I am unable to comment on anyone's motivations but my own.

So, you are not claiming they were motivated by atheism, but you are claiming that because they were atheists they could not feel remorse?

They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

[Anomalocaris]

So, you are not claiming they were motivated by atheism, but you are claiming that because they were atheists they could not feel remorse?

They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

Actually, the fear of retribution does that. We can supply real tangible retribution, and that should keep any higher IQ sociopath in line more effectively than a infantile fantasy coupled with transparent sophistry. But for a low IQ sociopath like you religion is likely just as effective.

The problem is hitler, Stalin, and pol pot were all highly likely to have been sociopaths of exceptionally high IQ, unlike you. Thus if real tangible retribution couldn't stay their hand, it would be idiotic to assume a fairy tale would have.

[trmof]

They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

Actually, the fear of retribution does that. We can supply real tangible retribution, and that should keep any higher IQ sociopath in line more effectively than a infantile fantasy coupled with transparent sophistry. But for a low IQ sociopath like you religion is likely just as effective.

The problem is hitler, Stalin, and pol pot were all highly likely to have been sociopaths of exceptionally high IQ, unlike you. Thus if real tangible retribution couldn't stay their hand, it would be idiotic to assume a fairy tale would have.

Trying to insult somebody by claiming they have a low IQ only works if that person does, in fact, have a low IQ. I do not. The fear of retribution does absolutely nothing to stop serial killers from killing. Most of them have very high IQs. The fact that dictators attain a position of power where there is no fear of retribution eliminates this as a factor. And no, fear does not stop me from doing anything I feel like doing.

[Chas]

So, you are not claiming they were motivated by atheism, but you are claiming that because they were atheists they could not feel remorse?

They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

OK, so you are claiming that atheism contains nothing that would restrain them.

You got that one right. But atheism is merely a lack of belief in any gods. So it has no bearing on their behavior.

And before you claim that religion gives one an objective reason to value human life, prepare some support for it.

[Whateverist]

By hard atheism I mean those who claim the non-existence of a God or gods as fact. They do in fact exist, and they are for the most part insufferable to have a conversation with.

As for the characteristics, a lower-case "god" would be a being which possesses power which would appear as incomprehensible magic to humans. This would apply to any being such as a demon or angel.

The creator God would be distinguished by his ability to, if not outright create, at least mold and shape universes to his liking.

Well at least you give me something to work with. Most people babble on about gods as if anyone really knew what they were. I do think your definition is inadequate to differentiate gods from advanced races of aliens. Or suppose there was a being of gigantic proportions whose scat consisted of galaxies? Would that count as a creator god by your reckoning?

Anyway I voted no to the poll. I personally am a very soft and accommodating atheist. I have as little belief in gods as anyone else but I have less settled opinions about what other people ought to believe and what they ought to base that on. That goes for hard atheists as well as hard theists. I don't see where I'm in any position to say either of them is whack. My choice is to take people as they come .. you're all so fascinating.

[trmof]

By hard atheism I mean those who claim the non-existence of a God or gods as fact. They do in fact exist, and they are for the most part insufferable to have a conversation with.

As for the characteristics, a lower-case "god" would be a being which possesses power which would appear as incomprehensible magic to humans. This would apply to any being such as a demon or angel.

The creator God would be distinguished by his ability to, if not outright create, at least mold and shape universes to his liking.

Well at least you give me something to work with. Most people babble on about gods as if anyone really knew what they were. I do think your definition is inadequate to differentiate gods from advanced races of aliens. Or suppose there was a being of gigantic proportions whose scat consisted of galaxies? Would that count as a creator god by your reckoning?

Anyway I voted no to the poll. I personally am a very soft and accommodating atheist. I have as little belief in gods as anyone else but I have less settled opinions about what other people ought to believe and what they ought to base that on. That goes for hard atheists as well as hard theists. I don't see where I'm in any position to say either of them is whack. My choice is to take people as they come .. you're all so fascinating.

Yes, both of those things would qualify as gods in my book. The scat monster might still fall under the heading of a lower-case god. If it scatted universes, maybe, but of course that's just a matter of degree.

---

They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

OK, so you are claiming that atheism contains nothing that would restrain them.

You got that one right. But atheism is merely a lack of belief in any gods. So it has no bearing on their behavior.

And before you claim that religion gives one an objective reason to value human life, prepare some support for it.

I think I'd rather leave it at you admitting that I was right.

---

Though it is hardly scientific or a large enough sample size, I should point out that the poll is currently at 60/40 opposed to hard atheism. This suggests hard atheists might be a larger percentage of atheists overall than the tiny minority some would claim. However, again, it is unscientific.