Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Alex K]

They say God does not exist without an iota of proof.

Are you catching on, because this is precisely how it works. Not having an iota of proof of god leads to the conclusion that there is no god.

And this is how lack of punctuation can land you on the pyre

[Mudhammam]

I just came across this passage while reading The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche:

"As interpreters of our experiences.--One sort of honesty has been alien to all founders of religion and their kind: They have never made their experiences a matter of conscience for knowledge. “What did I really experience? What happened in me and around me at that time? Was my reason bright enough? Was my will opposed to all deceptions of the senses and bold and in resisting the fantastic?” None of them has asked such questions, nor do any of our dear religious people ask them even now; on the contrary, they thirst after things that go against reason, and they do not wish to make it too hard for themselves to satisfy it. So they experience “miracles” and “rebirths” and hear the voices of little angels! But we, we others who thirst after reason, are determined to scrutinize our experiences as severely as a scientific experiment--hour after hour, day after day. We ourselves wish to be our own experiments and guinea pigs."

Sound familiar much?

[Alex K]

Ah, read that way too long ago! Nietzsche is quite entertaining, isn't he.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should I pony up? Again. This is not the subject here. The subject is: if one has logical and rational reasons for belief. Just because another (you) lacks understanding does not disqualify that fact.

Does another lack understanding? You've implied here that this is the explanation for the disconnect (as opposed to the believer lacking the ability to competently communicate their reason, -or-..gasp...simply not having what they claim to possess). You'll have to forgive me, but I fear that this is yet another claim to toss upon the mountain of as-yet unjustified claims.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Never took statistics, did you? Is there anything at all different about atheists on an atheist discussion board that might skew their responses in a particular direction from the general population of atheists? Were all the people who responded even atheists? Was the question worded in a way that could affect the results?

Since you previously admitted your poll is unscientific, you've no excuse for claiming it proves something.

---

10 is indeed a significant number

A significant number of what? People who are 'hard atheists' or people who don't think 'hard atheism' is irrational? Do you think there is 100% overlap in those two groups? Not everyone who disagrees with me is being irrational. It's not a given that if you reach a different conclusion from mine, that it is an irrational conclusion.

---

That would be true if the op hadn't clearly defined gnostic atheism as opposed to anti theism. One up to you for ignorance about the thread

The OP did clearly defined the term as gnostic atheism, and then pretty much continually used it as a synonym for anti-theism in practice.

[JesusHChrist]

My atheism tends to be the hardest in the morning.

[Alex K]

My atheism tends to be the hardest in the morning.

And how does it measure up on the Dawkins scale?

[JesusHChrist]

My atheism tends to be the hardest in the morning.

And how does it measure up on the Dawkins scale?

On a good day, at least a 6....

[Bibliofagus]

I don't bother with labeling myself 'agnostic' at all. I'm no agnostic liberal, no agnostic 2-2=0 believer. I'm not an agnostic editor who just 'believes' the stuff I learnt to work best works best. If I call an expert on just about any fucking subject he never ever starts saying 'well, stricktly speaking we are not sure the reality we observe is actually anywhere near what reality actually is, but if it is the answer to your question is blablabla.

Only atheists do this, and they/we only do it when confronted with a god claim. I wonder why. We are explicitly giving special credit to the specific idea a god exists when we say we are agnostic. And I think thats a stupid thing to do.

[Esquilax]

Not again with the lies esq. I'm really tired of your trolling.

If you want to engage, be a grown up and address the subject. Your posturing is noise to me.

What was it I said earlier? "Haughty dismissive arrogance" in place of actually explaining yourself? Hmm...

What's funny is that, just a post after this you were directly asked what your logical reason for belief was, and instead of answering a simple, straightforward question you... dodged it, like usual. So I think we can all see who's really lying here, hobbit.