"hard" atheism, what's the evidence for that leap?

[Samus]

This is something I have been pondering for a while. I've claimed in the past to be agnostic: unable to determine whether there is or isn't God(s). I've also stated that I basically live life as an atheist: I don't pray, I don't go to church, I don't thank God, etc.

So, I've started thinking of that as "soft" atheism, where I basically don't believe, but am not willing to make the hard-and-fast statement that God does not exist, because God cannot exist. Such a "hard" atheism is beyond my grasp.

So, I ask those on these forums that can state with some reasonable degree of certainty, what reasoning/evidence/judgement do you use to make the statement that God does not exist?

Some reasons I can't make that statement?

1. Vast differences over what people think God is, and what God's role is in the universe. Do I think of God as a 24/7 nanny, always watching over us keeping tally for the heaven entrance exam? No, I think that's silly.

However, by watching the recent world events, it's clear that everyone thinks God is on their side and will help punish the other side. God is more of a convenient "hidden ally" than anything else. Who is right? Who will actually get to meet God, and who had it all wrong?

2. Uncertainty as to the creation of the universe. To be perfectly honest, saying that God created the universe sounds no less magical than saying it just "happened" all of a sudden. What caused it to happen? What was there before there was everything?

3. There's always that little "just in case" excuse. What happens if there is a God after all?

Not that Franko is a concern to us anymore, but I was just thinking about his whole assertion that TLOP were the rules to play in God's sandbox. I think TLOP are the way they are because that's what makes sense given the structure of the universe. The warping of spacetime as objects (with mass) move through it, sure makes good sense to me. Nothing magical there, no need to explain it away.

Thoughts? Comments?

[TylerD]

dwb,

Originally posted by dwb
So, I've started thinking of that as "soft" atheism, where I basically don't believe, but am not willing to make the hard-and-fast statement that God does not exist, because God cannot exist. Such a "hard" atheism is beyond my grasp.

I should call myself a "medium atheist". I don't think that it is impossible for some kind of god to exist, but I'm highly skeptical of the probability.

Oringinally posted by dwb
2. Uncertainty as to the creation of the universe. To be perfectly honest, saying that God created the universe sounds no less magical than saying it just "happened" all of a sudden. What caused it to happen? What was there before there was everything?

I don't think that it's anything "magical" to say that the universe is uncaused. The Inflationary Big Bang model and Quantum Mechanics actually indicates that such a thing uccuring does not violate any of the known laws of physics. There have been experiements conducted which show that particles can and do manifest themselves from a complete vacuum. Since E=mc^2, and E=0 (the totaly energy in our universe, according to the available tests, equals about zero) and zero does not have to come from anywhere, I think it's safe to say it's at least within the realm of possibility, and likely to be in the realm of probability (I don't know for sure, I'm no physicist) that the universe came from a vacuum. If you want to read more on this, log onto the physicist Victor J Stengers website.

Originally posted by dwb
Not that Franko is a concern to us anymore, but I was just thinking about his whole assertion that TLOP were the rules to play in God's sandbox. I think TLOP are the way they are because that's what makes sense given the structure of the universe. The warping of spacetime as objects (with mass) move through it, sure makes good sense to me. Nothing magical there, no need to explain it away.

Agrred. Unfortunately for the Franko person you speak of, the "laws" of physics are misnamed. They are not some trancendant gonvernance that exist out there in some platonic reality. They are simply our comprehension of the way physical objects move. As Dan Barker put it, they are a DESCRIPTION not a PRESCRIPTION.

Hope this helps.

-- Tyler

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by TylerD
I don't think that it's anything "magical" to say that the universe is uncaused. The Inflationary Big Bang model and Quantum Mechanics actually indicates that such a thing uccuring does not violate any of the known laws of physics. There have been experiements conducted which show that particles can and do manifest themselves from a complete vacuum. Since E=mc^2, and E=0 and zero does not have to come from anywhere, I think it's safe to say it's at least within the realm of possibility, and likely to be in the realm of probability (I don't know for sure, I'm no physicist) that the universe came from a vacuum.
However, that the physical universe could have been uncaused doesn't establish that it was certainly uncaused - which is the proposition I think dwb is considering. Likewise, the empirical confirmation of creation ex nihilo doesn't establish that such creation is uncaused.

[TylerD]

I'm not disputing that. I think it's certainly within the realm of possibility that oru universe was created, I just need to be provided with evidence.

[Skeptical Greg]

As an Atheist, I do not say " God does not Exist ". I say " I have no evidence that God exists."
I have no reason to believe it is worthwhile to pursue such evidence, if it does exist.

Atheist means " without God ", so semantically speaking, someone could still believe in God and be an Atheist.

Perhaps that would fall in with your " soft - hard ", analysis.

[kedo1981]

It’s pointless to continually dwell on the (does/does not) issue. Gods existence can’t be proved or disproved, however religion (the truth of) can be shoot all to (hell) by logic, by historical research, science, on and on and on.
Religion and dogma are what we are battling here.

[Q-Source]

I am a hard atheist. The reasons to declare that there is no God are a logical conclusion from the empirical evidence that we have so far.


My reasons:

a) The Universe is all there is. The existence of God outside or inside the Universe is utterly contradictory. If God exists inside this Universe, then God is not omnipotent and omniscient. If God exists outside the Universe, then the Universe is not all there is.

b) The origin of the Universe (the Big Bang) does not neccesarily imply that it had a cause. The BB is an acausal event.

Therefore, God cannot exist either within or outside this Universe.

Q-S

[K-W]

Gods existance certainly could be proven to the extent that anything can be proven. More importanly any specific God could be disproven assuming there are some falsifiable claims made about that nature of that God.

What cant be disproven is the vague notion of a god/gods existing in some way shape or form. Or theory of god that makes no falsifiable claim.

But that is true of many things. For some reason when I say there isnt an invisible steamship in my front yard, no one gets antsy and calls me a hard a-invisiblesteamshipist. The hard/soft atheist destinction is something someone came up with in an argument against a theist. Its not a destinction that actually exists. A claim that god does not exist is a claim that there is no evidence of or evidence that calls for speculating on the existance of god, therefore for we report that he does not exist. No one (barring some fringe somewhere) is actually claiming that they can prove that nothing that could ever be called a god could ever possibly exist.

[TylerD]

I agree K-W, the distinctions between "soft" and "hard" atheists are extraneous and problematic. If you're an atheist than your an atheist, end of story.

[Agammamon]

Another problem is defining exactly what properties God has. What you may call God is not what I call god. Once you have a single definition of what God is then you can look for logical contradictions like square circles (e.g. if God is all powerful, can he make a rock too heavy to lift?). Using Christianity as an exapmle, many of the properties assigned to god are incompatible. Accepting as an axiom that logical inconsistencies are impossible, therefore God is impossible.

A similar problem relates to our less than perfect comprehension if the world. Say that a being shows up tomorrow and claims to have created the universe and to be all that God is supposed to be, at least as far as we can tell. Since our perceptions are finite there is always the possiblity that someone else will come along and fit the definition of God better.

And finally, even if God exists in any form, why should we bow to his will. Do you submit to your parents in their every whim? Why not, they created you and, by the same rationale that says we must fulfill God's plan, you are morally obligated to fulfill your parents plan (at least where it doesn't conflict with God's). You may say that children must submit to their parents until they are ready to take responsibility for themselves, and I would agree except that it is the child, not the parent, who ultimately decides when they are ready.

So I submit that even if a God exists we owe him nothing, not worship, not obedience, other than what we freely choose to give.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Q-Source

I am a hard atheist. The reasons to declare that there is no God are a logical conclusion from the empirical evidence that we have so far.


My reasons:

a) The Universe is all there is. The existence of God outside or inside the Universe is utterly contradictory. If God exists inside this Universe, then God is not omnipotent and omniscient. If God exists outside the Universe, then the Universe is not all there is.

b) The origin of the Universe (the Big Bang) does not neccesarily imply that it had a cause. The BB is an acausal event.

Therefore, God cannot exist either within or outside this Universe.

Q-S
(a) I question the usefulness of your definition of "Universe" for this sort of argument. If I may paraphrase you, you've essentially defined "Universe" as "the physical universe + God (if God exists)". Nothing in this definition can possibly give rise to a purely logical inconsistency between the existence of the Universe and the existence of God. Moreover, if God exists, not only does he belong to the set you have defined as the Universe, but it does not logically follow that God is not omnipotent and omniscient.

(b) Even accepting as true your premise that the Big Bang did not necessarily have a cause, the conclusion that the Big Bang necessarily had no cause does not follow logically. I might also add that due to your earlier definition of "Universe", it is now problematic for you to describe the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe - because your argument has gotten us no nearer to determining whether the set you call the "Universe" includes a God who actually does exist.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

(a) I question the usefulness of your definition of "Universe" for this sort of argument. If I may paraphrase you, you've essentially defined "Universe" as "the physical universe + God (if God exists)". Nothing in this definition can possibly give rise to a purely logical inconsistency between the existence of the Universe and the existence of God. Moreover, if God exists, not only does he belong to the set you have defined as the Universe, but it does not logically follow that God is not omnipotent and omniscient.

The Universe is all there is, it is physical (matter and energy).

If we include God in the Universe, then as I understand the definition of God, it could not exist under the logical framework of the Universe.

If we do not include God in the Universe, then the Universe is NOT all there is, which is contradictory with the definition of what the Universe is!


(b) Even accepting as true your premise that the Big Bang did not necessarily have a cause, the conclusion that the Big Bang necessarily had no cause does not follow logically.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Yahzi]

K-W is spot on with the invisible steamship analogy.

As for the word dod having so many different definitions, how does that make it a more viable concept? If you can't even define the word, then I think I'm well within the bounds of reason to assert that your undefined word does not refer to anything real.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Q-Source


The Universe is all there is, it is physical (matter and energy).

If we include God in the Universe, then as I understand the definition of God, it could not exist under the logical framework of the Universe.

If we do not include God in the Universe, then the Universe is NOT all there is, which is contradictory with the definition of what the Universe is!



I don't understand what you're saying here.

Q-Source, this logic is completely flawed. The Universe is defined as everything that exists, as far as I understand, so your second point is sound. However, let me use an example to show why #1 is flawed. Perhaps I created a highly advanced version of The Sims. Eventually, they get into this same debate, and somebody makes the point that the mighty ERK cannot be inside the Sim World (which is everything they can see) because of his nature, and the mighty ERK cannot be outside of the Sim World because that contradicts the definition of the Sim World. So, if this guy is right, why am I sitting at my computer laughing at their quibbling?

Basically, your first point assumes we know for sure that the Universe is all physical and that it follows the particular logical framework that we humans have figured out so far.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Yahzi
As for the word dod having so many different definitions, how does that make it a more viable concept? If you can't even define the word, then I think I'm well within the bounds of reason to assert that your undefined word does not refer to anything real. What, like Free Will? :)

Originally posted by Agammamon
So I submit that even if a God exists we owe him nothing, not worship, not obedience, other than what we freely choose to give. Agreed.

Originally posted by TylerD
I don't think that it's anything "magical" to say that the universe is uncaused. The Inflationary Big Bang model and Quantum Mechanics actually indicates that such a thing uccuring does not violate any of the known laws of physics. There have been experiements conducted which show that particles can and do manifest themselves from a complete vacuum. Since E=mc^2, and E=0 (the totaly energy in our universe, according to the available tests, equals about zero) and zero does not have to come from anywhere, I think it's safe to say it's at least within the realm of possibility, and likely to be in the realm of probability (I don't know for sure, I'm no physicist) that the universe came from a vacuum. If you want to read more on this, log onto the physicist Victor J Stengers website. Got a URL for that web site? My web searching has been unsuccessful, though I did find a couple people talking about his web site, and I saw a book of his for sale on Amazon.com. I'd be interested to read some of his stuff.

As I was sitting here, I thought about how foolish the concept of heaven and hell really is. We have the universe, but somewhere there's a place where all the good and bad people go once they die. The bad place is this fiery location managed by a red gentleman with a pointy tail. Good people walk on clouds, and are given harps to play. It's all rather silly.

Indeed, God is ill-defined. That's part of the problem, I don't believe that God is like the Christian God, but I can't 100% dismiss the idea that there may very well be a being that made this all happen. Regardless, I don't think some guy on cable TV with a bad haircut has been chosen to speak on God's behalf.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by TheERK

Basically, your first point assumes we know for sure that the Universe is all physical and that it follows the particular logical framework that we humans have figured out so far.

So, Scientists do not know for sure that the Universe is physical and it is all there is?

You'll have to check those scientific axioms again.

Q-S

[K-W]

Originally posted by Q-Source


So, Scientists do not know for sure that the Universe is physical and it is all there is?

You'll have to check those scientific axioms again.

Q-S

No decent scientist would claim to know that. Axioms change, good science gave up on claiming theyd figured out the universe along time ago.

[Jethro]

What's the evidence for believing there is no pink, invisible, immaterial unicorn lying in my bed right now?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by K-W


No decent scientist would claim to know that. Axioms change, good science gave up on claiming theyd figured out the universe along time ago.

Try to insert God into this framework:


1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. Their are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.

NS. This comes from BillHoyt.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Jethro
What's the evidence for believing there is no pink, invisible, immaterial unicorn lying in my bed right now? I can counter this argument quickly with a little "idea evolution" (or whatever you want to call it)

The idea of God has been around for a long time. Bad ideas tend to get shuffled into history eventually. Earth is the center of the universe, for example. The idea that there's a unicorn in your bed won't be around for 2000 years. God, as a concept, has existed for a long time.

While that does not prove the existence of God, it rules out the ability to make an analogy such as yours. Show me another false idea that has been around as long as God has. The idea of God has persisted over the years, across multiple cultures nonetheless.

In short, you can't compare the two.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Jethro
What's the evidence for believing there is no pink, invisible, immaterial unicorn lying in my bed right now?

None, except that logic would dictate that the unicorn can't be invisible in the same sense that it is pink.

You're going to have to jump through some serious hoops to get out of that one.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by dwb

In short, you can't compare the two.

Why not?

Just because more deluded people believe in God instead of pink unicorns does not mean that both concepts are equally inconsistent and irrational.

Q

[Samus]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Why not?

Just because more deluded people believe in God instead of pink unicorns does not mean that both concepts are equally inconsistent and irrational. Why not? Because the idea of God has stood the test of time. I'm not saying it's any more valid of an idea than pink unicorns, I'm simply stating that you can't lump a random thought and a time-tested idea into the same category and just write off both of them as irrational.

People have fought and died in the name of God, no one has done that with unicorns to my knowledge. Sorry, but I need something a little more substantive than "well, there's no tooth fairy, so there's no God." That's a weak argument, in my opinion.

[Frostbite]

I've been reading a couple articles about alternate universes and multiverses and well, the Big Bang could be the least of our worries... :eek:

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by dwb
Why not? Because the idea of God has stood the test of time. I'm not saying it's any more valid of an idea than pink unicorns, I'm simply stating that you can't lump a random thought and a time-tested idea into the same category and just write off both of them as irrational.

People have fought and died in the name of God, no one has done that with unicorns to my knowledge. Sorry, but I need something a little more substantive than "well, there's no tooth fairy, so there's no God." That's a weak argument, in my opinion.

Who says the unicorn isn't a time-tested idea? Today it's widely considered a myth, but who says unicorns weren't widely believed to exist in medieval times for instance? Don't forget that monotheism is relatively young, there have been times where people believed... no... they KNEW that there was whole pantheons of gods. The idea of a God is imho just a filler, it conveniently fills in all the blanks in our inquiring minds. I could be wrong tho, there could be an omnipotent, omniscient being peeking over my shoulder as I'm typing this, but I'd very much like my 5 senses to tell me he's there. At least then I could believe it.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by dwb
I can counter this argument quickly with a little "idea evolution" (or whatever you want to call it)

The idea of God has been around for a long time. Bad ideas tend to get shuffled into history eventually. Earth is the center of the universe, for example. The idea that there's a unicorn in your bed won't be around for 2000 years. God, as a concept, has existed for a long time.

While that does not prove the existence of God, it rules out the ability to make an analogy such as yours. Show me another false idea that has been around as long as God has. The idea of God has persisted over the years, across multiple cultures nonetheless.

In short, you can't compare the two.
Cow cookies. Longevity is not evidence for worth.

Ideas of god(s) have been around a long time. Many incompatible ideas. All but one of them must be wrong. At least.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by dwb
Why not? Because the idea of God has stood the test of time.
I see I'm chasing a moving target here. "sttod the test of time"? Are you saying the idea is testable?

I don't think you are, but if not, you need to be careful of your wording.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by dwb

People have fought and died in the name of God, no one has done that with unicorns to my knowledge. Sorry, but I need something a little more substantive than "well, there's no tooth fairy, so there's no God." That's a weak argument, in my opinion.
I don't think you want to bring up the word "substantive". It will look bad when reflected back upon you. What is "substantive" about the case for god?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I am a hard atheist, in that I think there really is no God. By God I mean a supernatural being.

On what basis am I this? Ultimately Occam's Razor.

I am likewise a hard nonracist, nonelf believer, nongremlenist etc.

Now can we come up with an endless amount of "what if" justifications?

Maybe there are radical racial differences, science simply cannot detect them because they are "spiritual" or maybe science has detected them, and the Jews who control our media have subverted the truth.

Maybe spontanious generation occurs. Maybe leaves turn into fish ALL the time, when I'm not looking.

But ultimately I believe all the above are false. Mainly because I think many other things are true.

Now are the above *possible*? Sure are. But they are so improbable that I dismiss them, as certainly as I dismiss the notion that my computer will grow teeth and eat me.

And I don't merely "not believe", I think they are improbable, VERY improbable, so in a sense I disbelieve. My disblief is of course provisional, but then again so are most of my beliefs.

Just to illustrate this more clearly with something a weak atheist may be open to.

Most soft atheists accept evolution, that evolutionary theory is in fact true. Many soft atheists likewise admit that there is proof for evolution.

However IF evolution, orthodox darwinian evolution is true, then 6-day creationism must be false. The two theories contradict eachother. (Notice I'm speaking here of strict darwinism and strict creationism.)

Now then every piece of evidence for evolution in a sense disproves creationism. If we have the premise "If E not C" (e=evolution, c=creationism )then "more E, more E, more E" means "less C, less C, less C." With the "more" meaning more probable.

This translates to theism as every event that fits parsimoniously with a naturalistic viewpoint lowers the probability of supernaturalism, more so a specific type of supernaturalism, will be true.

And just as I believe that germs cause disease and not "bad air" I must believe the universe is purely natural/material and not made by a supernatural being.

[K-W]

Originally posted by dwb
Why not? Because the idea of God has stood the test of time. I'm not saying it's any more valid of an idea than pink unicorns, I'm simply stating that you can't lump a random thought and a time-tested idea into the same category and just write off both of them as irrational.

People have fought and died in the name of God, no one has done that with unicorns to my knowledge. Sorry, but I need something a little more substantive than "well, there's no tooth fairy, so there's no God." That's a weak argument, in my opinion.

First off Frostbites point. People havent believed in God for that long. People have had religion for a long time. Heck the God people believe in now is in many senses different than the God 3 generations ago. Not to mention the fact that there is no agreement of what God is.

How exactly can you make your point when there are nearly as many concepts of god as there are people who believe in god.

Simply being believed for a long time does not validate something nor does it make one idea stronger than the other. By that criteria, belief in ghosts is a more sound theory than relativity. People have believed that deceased spirits walked the earth for much longer than they have believed in god and relativity is much much much younger idea than either of those two. If people believing something for a long time substantiates it, certainly the existance of ghosts is well substantiated by now.

Now please present a logical argument that people believing in god and dying for that concept substantiates the claim of god.

[Samus]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I see I'm chasing a moving target here. "sttod the test of time"? Are you saying the idea is testable?

I don't think you are, but if not, you need to be careful of your wording. It's a figure of speech. It means that the idea has been around for a long time, and continues to exist. Time itself is not a test; people's willingness to perpetuate the belief is more appropriately the test.

Or did you know that already, and you're only making me clarify?

[Samus]

Originally posted by K-W
Now please present a logical argument that people believing in god and dying for that concept substantiates the claim of god. Again, my point was made not to validate the idea of God. My point was directed toward the attempt to lump all of theism in with beliefs in pink unicorns; they're not the same beast (so to speak).

Theism has much deeper cultural roots; the analogy of "well, there aren't pink unicorns, so there is no God(s)" is what I was arguing against. The "people have died for..." was an example of the profound impact theism has had on our culture.

The same cannot be said for other invisible friends. Hence, God cannot be written off so easily (in my mind).

Hope this helps clear up the confusion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Reminds me of an old quote I heard but don't fully remember. Mainly that "something isn't true just because someone died for it."

Or "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

Take racism for example, though belief in god is not nearly as bad at the moral level, the argument you are using would give racism good epistemic status. People have died for racist causes, racism has been around for many years, and racist beliefs survive prevalently to this day.

Sorry but I don't think that gives racism one iota more of credibility then it normally has.

Also I think I see your point. It may be that theism requires more serious treatment and examination. Perhaps so, but that is a matter of custom not epistemic status. That doesn't make theism any more credible, as it does more serious and cannot be used to argue for weak atheism over strong atheism.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by dwb
Time itself is not a test; people's willingness to perpetuate the belief is more appropriately the test.
The distinction is not clear to me.

An example: people have believed in 'alternative' folk remedies for an immensely long time. Some of them are complete worthless crap.

You have failed to establish any link between the length of time belief in god(s) has been around, and any substantive basis for that belief. I think the 'invisible pink unicorns' comparison stands.

[Samus]

I should add that I don't need to believe in god. Indeed, there are some people that need that, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their mind.

That said, I have never put any serious amount of thought into whether there is any type of super-being that created the universe and/or watches over it. My thoughts have focused mainly on organized religion, and the harm it has done and the nonsense it passes along.

I think religion clouds one's ability to think about god. We're so used to the Christian idea of god, and I've always been curious to adopt my own vision of what god would look like and do. Which was one of my reasons for starting this thread. I'm trying to determine if there's any logical way to conceptualize god and his role. Of course, all this implies monotheism, which, as was mentioned, is a relatively new belief.

I'd also like to mention I'm really enjoying this discussion. Unfortunately, I must go for now. I'll be back! :)

[K-W]

Originally posted by dwb
Again, my point was made not to validate the idea of God. My point was directed toward the attempt to lump all of theism in with beliefs in pink unicorns; they're not the same beast (so to speak).

Theism has much deeper cultural roots; the analogy of "well, there aren't pink unicorns, so there is no God(s)" is what I was arguing against. The "people have died for..." was an example of the profound impact theism has had on our culture.

The same cannot be said for other invisible friends. Hence, God cannot be written off so easily (in my mind).

Hope this helps clear up the confusion.

No it just isolates the confusion.

You are contradicting yourself. In one sentance you say that it doesnt validate the idea of god. Then you say that god should be considered a more valid idea because of it.

You cant have it both ways. Either you are arguing that long term belief supports the theory of god. Or you you cant say that long term belief destinguishes it from other beliefs.

Also no one has argued that there is no god because there are no pink unicorns. That is a rediculous argument. The point is that both unicorns and god have the same level of evidence supporting a belief in thier existance. So if you think there is enough evidence to believe in god, you should probably believe in pink unicorns as well. Your can either argue that longer more dedicated belief in god is evidence and support that, or you have to conced that.

[arcticpenguin]

If someone wants to take an agnostic stance, fine with me. But if they try to tell me that it is illogical to reach a provisional conclusion in light of the overwhelming lack of evidence, that is when I go to 'invisible pink unicorns'. It is not illogical, and I could certainly change my mind when presented with credible evidence for the existence of god(s).

[Samus]

Originally posted by K-W
You are contradicting yourself. In one sentance you say that it doesnt validate the idea of god. Then you say that god should be considered a more valid idea because of it. yeah, and you're ugly! :)

Seriously K, good post. I gotta run to a meeting, I'll be back in a few hours. Let me ponder this a little more and get back to you.

The main thing I was trying to get across was that theism isn't as easily dismissed as unicorns.

Bleh, time to put the shovel down and see if I can climb out of this hole. Be back in a little bit...

[jimlintott]

Hard atheist.

Have been my whole life.

Have experienced and studied many religions and always felt that they were nothing more than stories that help explain the wonders of the world. I always felt that science seemed to have the best answers so I swayed that way.

The christian concept of a physical being concieving of and almost spontaneously creating everything has been hard for me to wrap my head around.

Then there's those pagans who believe that mother earth brings forth life with the aid of the energy from father sky. Just how kooky is that?

What about those whacky Hindu's with all their female gods. Imagine a female god.

I usually tell believers that I am as sure there is no god as they are sure there is.

[DialecticMaterialist]

It comes down in a way to which explanation is more likely, that the supernaturalist is correct and there are supernatrual entities or that the supernaturalist is making it up?

The former is an extraordinary claim, the latter is a far more warranted claim.

Dear all,

I try to examine the evidence and then come to a workable conclusion.

I don't go into a situation saying that I am this, or I am that.

My reasons: I am never able to know how something truly is.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[TylerD]

I'd just like to give my $0.02 on a few things.

The frist being the fact that the longevity of an idea has no bearing on whether it's valid or not. Many people down through the ages have believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth, does that make those ideas any more valid? Absolutely not.

The second being the fact that (as I've stated before) the "hard" and "soft" philosophical definitions of atheism are extraneous. If you are an atheist than that means that you do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for God and/or that the concept of God is an incoherent notiong and therefore cannot exist. End of story.

-- Tyler

[Fade]

The idea that the "age" of god as an idea is any indication of it's truthfullness is not only a logical fallacy (ad antiquitatem, ad numerum, ad populum), it's just flat out silly when you think about it.

Take Randi's Homeopathy experiments in the UK. It has been shown to the Brits, now, that homeopathy DOES NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT work! However, people still spend the money. People still send their friends and relative to homeopathic practioners. People don't abandon ideas just because they have been shown to be false. The opposite is often true, the more they are told something is wrong, the more they assume it is correct.

The idea of "god" in general has been around a very long time. But, most ideas of god, specifically, aren't very old at all. The vast majority (as in, all of them that I know of so far) of belief systems change and mutate at will to relate to the lives of it's believers. Even in Christianity, we see a gradual change from "God as All Seeing All Doing Father" to God as "Eventual Judge Who Loves You But Doesn't EVER Interfere"

The change happens not because that god changed (because that would mean god isn't inerrant, can't have that) but because christians changed, and their god changed with them. Anyway, we're really just starting understand what makes the universe work. Only in the past century or so (out of tens of thousands of years of human history) have we had the ability to even look at things in detail on the cellular level. Ideas like GOD, which can be said to be one of the foundational beliefs of many humans, are very hard to expunge completely. They are so all inclusive, that science will have to advance another several hundred years before the common person finally understands that god no longer has anywhere to hide.


TylerD said:

I agree K-W, the distinctions between "soft" and "hard" atheists are extraneous and problematic. If you're an atheist than your an atheist


Ridiculous. My coat is light green, my chair is dark green. Both are simply different types of green, but both are green. A hard (affirmative, positive) atheist is not a soft (weak, negative) atheist. The "belief" (if you can call it that) is the same in one sense, but it has different scope and scale. The dichotomy is useful in that it serves to give a better understanding of what a given person actually thinks.

I do not think the idea of god is impossible, nor do I think there is definitely not a god out there. I simply don't see any reason to believe there is, given that all the 5 billion or so theists on this planet all have different, and more often then not, contradictory ideas as to what god IS. It, to me, represents the neutral, non-commital position.

Edit-
Cut and Paste put more then I needed!

[TylerD]

Originally posted by Fade
Ridiculous. My coat is light green, my chair is dark green. Both are simply different types of green, but both are green. A hard (affirmative, positive) atheist is not a soft (weak, negative) atheist. The "belief" (if you can call it that) is the same in one sense, but it has different scope and scale. The dichotomy is useful in that it serves to give a better understanding of what a given person actually thinks.

Fallacy of equivication. There is a definite difference between two shades of colours. Can you explain to me the difference between so called "soft" and so called "hard" atheism? Is not believing that God exist de facto believing that he does not exist?

[Fade]

Originally posted by TylerD


Fallacy of equivication. There is a definite difference between two shades of colours. Can you explain to me the difference between so called "soft" and so called "hard" atheism? Is not believing that God exist de facto believing that he does not exist?

It helps if, when you throw around the word fallacy, you correctly identify one.

I am fairly sure your misunderstanding of my position relates to your fundamental misuse of the word atheism.

Atheism affirms nothing. Atheism is a lack of something. It can become affirmative, in which case it becomes a different flavour, although still similar enough to put it under the same category. I am most certainly not from the group that is positive that there is no god (as a hard atheist is) I simply see no reason to believe in one. Your refusal to recognize these difference is your problem, not mine.

[TylerD]

Though you did so eloquently, you completely dodged my question.

How are "I do not believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" two different statements? Since the answer to the question is obvious I expect you to be able to answer it.

And btw, what you said was a fallacy, it means false assumtion incase you didn't already know.

[K-W]

Fade you are right. There is a destinction to be made between claiming there is definately no god of any kind and claiming there is no reason to believe in a god.

Teh thing is, the first type described there is a myth. An invention of debates between athiest and theists. A straw man setup by theists to try to discredit atheism and used by atheists to respond. Anyone who claims that there is absolutely, definitively no god of any kinds is silly. And I dont think you are going to find anyone who denies the ultimate possiblity.

Atheists say "there is no god" because that doesnt mean that there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god of some kind. It means that there is no reason to believer or suspect even that there is a god.

So theres no point in us constantly picking apart that language or worrying about this destinction. There maybe be some destinctions to be made among atheists, this is not one of them.

[Samus]

Originally posted by K-W
Also no one has argued that there is no god because there are no pink unicorns. That is a rediculous argument. The point is that both unicorns and god have the same level of evidence supporting a belief in thier existance. So if you think there is enough evidence to believe in god, you should probably believe in pink unicorns as well. Fair enough, a misunderstanding on my part. I stand by my comment that one cannot dismiss theism so quickly, because of the cultural impact it has had; lack of evidence notwithstanding. Studying the effect a belief in god(s) has had on mankind should go hand-in-hand with studyng evidence (or lack thereof) for that belief.

Originally posted by K-W
Anyone who claims that there is absolutely, definitively no god of any kinds is silly. And I dont think you are going to find anyone who denies the ultimate possiblity. Yes, but there are atheists in this thread that would disagree with you; as jimlintott said: "I usually tell believers that I am as sure there is no god as they are sure there is."

I was making a distinction between people who think god(s) can exist, but don't think it's probable, versus people who say "of course there's no god(s), there's no logical reason to think there can be." (read DialecticMaterialist's most recent post in this thread).

It's two different schools of thought, K. I say I lack the evidence to completely write off the existence of god(s) based on reasons I gave in the opening post. God as a concept is very confusing, because each flavor of religion/deism has a different idea of what god(s) is/are. Before I write off the idea all together, I want to get a handle on these different concepts of god(s), and see if any of them make sense.

Take for example, the god that always watches you and keeps a score card for your heaven entrance exam; and if you don't worship him you burn in hell for eternity. That god sounds like a scare tactic more than anything else, something to force weak people to conform. That's very different from the idea that a god created the universe and all there is, and takes a laissez faire approach to universe management.

Do any of these ideas make sense? Can't say, I haven't studied religions closely enough.

Originally posted by TylerD
...the "hard" and "soft" philosophical definitions of atheism are extraneous. If you are an atheist than that means that you do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for God and/or that the concept of God is an incoherent notiong and therefore cannot exist. End of story. Not quite, Tyler, you just described two very different attitudes. One is "I lack the evidence to make a conclusion," which means the mind is still open to the possibility. The so-called hard atheist says "I've concluded god(s) cannot exist," which implies a closed mind and being unwilling to listen to arguments to the contrary. Or am I mistaking what you're saying?

Thanks again all, keep it coming! :)

[BillyTK]

I'm an ontological atheist; If god is everything s/he is made out to be then there's no way s/he can be known in human terms, and any human claims of such knowledge should be treated with the utmost caution. Although I do believe in god (16 yrs of catholicism can do that to you), I take the zen route that regardless of the question of the non/existence of deities, presumed rewards and/or punishments in the afterlife is no moral basis to live your life.

[jimmygun]

I am a "hard" atheist. Anything other than a hard atheist in my opinion is the same as believing in god. How can someone say after searching for a length of time and finding nothing to validate the existance of god, they still believe there might be a god?

It is the same as "I don't believe in ghosts but I'm afraid of them."

If after 6000 years of searching for any evidence of Superman you did not find anything, would you still hold out for the possibility of Superman's existance? Is there any difference between Superman and God and an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Not in my opinion.

[K-W]

Originally posted by dwb
Fair enough, a misunderstanding on my part. I stand by my comment that one cannot dismiss theism so quickly, because of the cultural impact it has had; lack of evidence notwithstanding. Studying the effect a belief in god(s) has had on mankind should go hand-in-hand with studyng evidence (or lack thereof) for that belief.

You are still asking us to concede to you that the persistant belief is evidence that the belief is valid. Logically speaking that doesnt fly. So until you can show us how belief=evidence of existance, your not going to convince me to accept that belief=evidence.

Originally posted by dwb

Yes, but there are atheists in this thread that would disagree with you; as jimlintott said: "I usually tell believers that I am as sure there is no god as they are sure there is."

I was making a distinction between people who think god(s) can exist, but don't think it's probable, versus people who say "of course there's no god(s), there's no logical reason to think there can be." (read DialecticMaterialist's most recent post in this thread).

It's two different schools of thought, K.

Its a flawed destinction. Saying that you tell believes that I am as sure there is no god as they are sure there is, is both a commentary on the evidence of a god and on peoples irrational beliefs.

Saying that there is no logical reason to think that there can be a god is exactly the same school of thought as saying that god could exist but it is improbable.

No one is claiming the undefendable position that they can know for certain that no god exists. Simply that all indicators show that he probably doesnt. There are many different ways of stating it, and in the context of how we use words, saying "there is no god" still falls into this catagory. The mythical hard atheist who says that and doesn't unspokenly mean that evidence shows no signs of god and lots of signs of invented gods is someone i dont think you will ever actually run into unless you find someone who doesnt have much of a grasp on logic.

Try this statement, when I say "the sun will rise tommarow" I know full well that it might not. When probabilities reach a certain point we state absolutes. That doesnt mean we believe in absolutes. Few people are that confused that they claim to know the absolute nature of the universe, so few people its not worth discussing really.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by dwb
I can counter this argument quickly with a little "idea evolution" (or whatever you want to call it)


While that does not prove the existence of God, it rules out the ability to make an analogy such as yours. Show me another false idea that has been around as long as God has. The idea of God has persisted over the years, across multiple cultures nonetheless.

In short, you can't compare the two.

How about divination (astrology/entrail reading etc). That's been around for as long as some sort of God concept so are you saying that gives it legitimacy?
And while the concept of god may have been around for a while, the specific details have change drastically over time. For example-the current formulation of God in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim tradition is less than 5000 years old. The old Greek/Roman gods are older still. The concept of god is not a singular idea but rather a class of ideas, all with very different details. Given how often the idea of god changes, it is certainly appropriate to compare it with the invisible unicorn example.

[TylerD]

Okay, I give up. You guys win.

There are two completely different attitudes in atheism. I was mistaken in thinking this.

Soft atheism=I do not believe that God exists.
Hard atheism=I believe that no God exists.

I didn't see any fundamental difference between the two, just like there is no fundamental difference between these two.

1. I do not believe that anyone can do a kameameha wave.
2. I believe that no one can do a kameameha wave.

But I now understand that the hard atheist says that it's impossible for God to exist. Thanks for clearing it all up.

-- Tyler

[Ricomise]

How about "There is no concept of God that I have been able to conceive of, nor that anyone has explained to me which I believe to be true."

Therefore I do not believe God exists.

"Hard" or "soft?"

[TylerD]

How about "There is no concept of God that I have been able to conceive of, nor that anyone has explained to me which I believe to be true."

Therefore I do not believe God exists.

"Hard" or "soft?"

Soft. It's another way of say "I have yet to find a logical argument for any gods existence, therefore I lack belief that any do ineed exist." Which is the soft/weak/negative atheist position.

[Yahzi]

dwb
Show me another false idea that has been around as long as God has.
Astrology.

Racism.

Souls.

Can I stop now?


TylerD
I agree with you. To be a "soft athiest" would be the position of asserting that even though you don't believe in God, you think he might possibly exist, and are just waiting for the evidence. I don't think that really reflects the attitude of any athiest. We would all be convinced by appropriate evidence: and people who describe themselves as athiest have pretty much given up hope of being proved wrong. Which is perhaps what an agnostic is: one who is athiest but dearly hopes that they will turn out to be wrong.

To be a hard athiest is to say that the very concept of god is as incoherent as a square circle, and thus cannot exist. But that position isn't actually inconsistent with soft atheism, since soft athiests also reject incoherent gods.

Maybe these should be the definitions:

Agnostic - one who does not believe in god, but would like to.

Soft Athiest - one who does not believe in god, but won't call you an idiot for wanting to.

Hard Athiest - one who does not believe in god, and would be horrified at having to worship the bloodthirsty, unstable, amoral monster which is usually presented as god(s).

I think the hard athiests are humanists - people who chose people as the ultimate authority over people - and the others are potentially metaphysical paternalists. Not that I would call you names for holding a different position, though. ;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I think the hard athiests are humanists - people who chose people as the ultimate authority over people - and the others are potentially metaphysical paternalists. Not that I would call you names for holding a different position, though.

Yes, some humanists are hard atheists, but not all of them.

What do you think of people who call themselves "agnostic-atheists" like Stimpson?

I think it is incoherent. Although an agnostic position is related to knowledge, a atheistic position is the inevitable result of knowledge. So, why saying that you don't believe in God because you don't know if there is a God?.

Isn't the current scientific knowledge enough to support the assertion that God cannot exist within this Universe?

[Bluegill]

I have long called myself an agnostic because I had no reason to believe in god's existence, and no evidence against his existence. But this discussion has helped me with my thinking, and is helping me refine my definitions. Therefore, it is helping me with my self-labeling.

So...keep up the good work.:)

(I suppose I'll be calling myself an atheist now, by the way.)

[K-W]

Originally posted by Bluegill
I have long called myself an agnostic because I had no reason to believe in god's existence, and no evidence against his existence. But this discussion has helped me with my thinking, and is helping me refine my definitions. Therefore, it is helping me with my self-labeling.

So...keep up the good work.:)

(I suppose I'll be calling myself an atheist now, by the way.)

You also have no reason to believe against the existance of anything. Your gonna definately need to do some refining I think. I think alot of agnostics are afraid of the hard-atheist stigma based on the hard atheist myth used by theists as a straw man.

Ive still yet to meet an atheist who doesnt believe that you cant prove the non-existance of anything and wouldnt be open to looking at evidence and being proven wrong.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by K-W


You also have no reason to believe against the existance of anything. Your gonna definately need to do some refining I think. I think alot of agnostics are afraid of the hard-atheist stigma based on the hard atheist myth used by theists as a straw man.

Ive still yet to meet an atheist who doesnt believe that you cant prove the non-existance of anything and wouldnt be open to looking at evidence and being proven wrong.

You should have been around way back in the beggining, there was a poster named qed who claimed that he could logically disprove every God :)

He claimed God was impossible based on the fact that he had shown the logical inconsistency of every God anyone had ever told him about.

The 'hardest' atheist I've ever seen.

Adam

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'd say that the difference between hard and soft atheist is this:

Given that a belief means "is true",when the soft atheist is saying "I don't believe in God." the soft atheist is merely saying "I don't think theism is true."

That doesn't automatically make is false though. You can simply be suspending judgement due to lack of evidence on either side. That's really no different then agnosticism as a conclusion.

Or maybe the person has never even heard of God, so the idea of God has no epistemic status as far as he/she's concerned.

The strong atheist though is basically saying "Theism is false." I am personally a hard atheist for reasons I describe earlier in this thread.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Q-Source
The Universe is all there is, it is physical (matter and energy).

If we include God in the Universe, then as I understand the definition of God, it could not exist under the logical framework of the Universe.

If we do not include God in the Universe, then the Universe is NOT all there is, which is contradictory with the definition of what the Universe is!
Sorry I was away for a couple of days and couldn't clarify my comments.

If you're defining "Universe" as "all things that exist" (as you appear to be), and then one of your premises is essentially that a non-physical God cannot, by definition, belong to the set of things that exist, then doesn't your premise already assume - directly or indirectly - the truth of your conclusion (that God does not exist)? This seems to me to be an example of circular reasoning (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html).
Originally posted by Q-Source
I don't understand what you're saying here.
I'll paraphrase myself in clearer terms:

Accepting that the Big Bang did not necessarily have a cause does not establish that it necessarily had NO cause (i.e. that it was acausal as you claim).

[thaiboxerken]

So, I ask those on these forums that can state with some reasonable degree of certainty, what reasoning/evidence/judgement do you use to make the statement that God does not exist?

The same reason I can say, with a degree of certainy, that Santa Clause doesn't exist.
There is NO evidence of such things and the claims that these things exist and have the powers claimed go beyond known science. It is, therefore, reasonable to claim that such beings do not exist.

[Akots]

I suppose it is with exactly that same "Degree Of Certainty" that I admit God could exist.

How am I supposed to provide evidence for something that I believe should only be accepted on a personal level? If there were definitive and incontrovertible proof of God, there would be no choice whatsoever as to religion. Kiss your free will goodbye.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

If you're defining "Universe" as "all things that exist" (as you appear to be), and then one of your premises is essentially that a non-physical God cannot, by definition, belong to the set of things that exist, then doesn't your premise already assume - directly or indirectly - the truth of your conclusion (that God does not exist)?

No, it is not my premise. It is a logical deduction from the following scientific axioms:


1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. There are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.
(From BillHoyt's post somewhere)


If something is not part of the Universe and cannot interact with the fundamental components of such Universe (matter and energy), then it DOES NOT exist. Unless someone proves otherwise.

[Akots]

4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.

If there's a discrepancy between reality and mathematics, we cannot change the universe by altering our language. We adjust the language to fit the universe.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Astrology.
Racism.
Souls.

Can I stop now? yes, you may. *licks wounds*

I'm open-minded enough to appreciate when someone else has a better argument. It's one of the reasons I come to this forum. There definitely seems to be a difference amongst people on these forums ...how certain they are of their beliefs (not beliefs in god(s) mind you, just beliefs in general) Just wanted some justification on why people have reached the conclusions they've reached.

That said, all those ideas you listed have been around for thousands of years, will they not continue for thousands more? Is it not more difficult to purge bad ideas in these cases? Does it not require more thought and effort to debunk things like this? So, perhaps the length of time an idea has been around does indeed affect one's ability to prove it wrong or right?

Originally posted by Yahzi
Maybe these should be the definitions:

Agnostic - one who does not believe in god, but would like to.

Soft Athiest - one who does not believe in god, but won't call you an idiot for wanting to.

Hard Athiest - one who does not believe in god, and would be horrified at having to worship the bloodthirsty, unstable, amoral monster which is usually presented as god(s). Those sound good. Interestingly, the "hardness" of an atheist seems to have more to do with their attitude/behavior towards theists and theism.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well the problem for someone saying you cannot "prove a negative" or disprove something is that they usually mean you cannot absolutely disprove a notion. To that I concede to every notion except perhaps contradictions or things at odds with the most fundamental axioms.

However that is in a sense just as unreasonable as saying you cannot "prove" anything because you cannot absolutely prove it.

Just because a person if he or she stretches their story enough can make it fit the evidence like a glove does not make any refutation weaker. That ignores conceptual standards like parsimony.

Also I'd like to point out that a convincing case has been made that all we can do is disprove notions i.e. prove negatives but not prove notions by Karl Popper. Now I don't agree with Popper fully but he did make a convincing case for how you can disprove a notion.

To borrow one of Popper's simple examples, lets take the claim "all crows are white" finding just one black crow disproves it. Or "no crows are black" again finding one black crow disproves that claim.

Basically the formula is "If E not C" then we get "C" so "not E".

You can also show a claim is superfluous, this is actually one of the easiest and quickest ways to get rid of a claim. Basically this makes the claim lose epistemic status in favor of alternatives.

Basically both reasons(sometimes even that of contradiction) can be employed when dealing with a deity. The fundamentalist deity can be shown to be disproven by direct means: sometimes contradiction, other times by more deductive means, example:

If the fundamentalist God exists then evolution cannot be true.

Evolution is true.

Thus the fundamentalist God cannot exist.

The above is provisional as evolution could be false, though that is highly improbable.

But lets take even the deist God. Here we can simply dismiss him because a natural/material or self-contained universe is very plausible, so there is no need for such a God. Thus given the standard of parsimony such a theist world view must be deemed improbable. Of course the above depends on how probable it is that the universe is material/natural.

[DialecticMaterialist]

If something is not part of the Universe and cannot interact with the fundamental components of such Universe (matter and energy), then it DOES NOT exist. Unless someone proves otherwise.

I don't see how that follows. For it to work you need some additional premises.

A premise like:

Everything in the universe must interact with fundamental components of the universe.

and

The fundamental components are energy and matter.(Physical substance).

However the two above can be at best described as provisionally true.

I don't even believe in the first of those two myself. (Though I'm not saying it's false yet.)

As for your other points,

1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. There are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.
(From BillHoyt's post somewhere)

I'll agree with premises 1-2. Those are however logical abnd philosophical not scientific.

Number three is somewhat based on observation, motion and deduction/inference. Though I still see at as absolute.

Four also follows absolutely. As a universe where 1 plus 1 equals 4 is the same as one with contradictions. (Note this means mathematics necessarily applies to the universe but that doesn't mean mere math provides a sufficient description.)

Five also follows at some level.

The problem with 4 and 5 is that they are necessary, but four is not sufficient and five is not universal.

Perhaps some components of this universe can be analyzed in isolation, it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL can be. We only demand some to avoid pure skepticism, applying that to all now is unecessary as well as questionable given the law of gravity(which makes some aspects of the universe always interacting).

Also just because at a quantitative level any component of the universe must submit to mathemtaical laws, it doesn't mean math is sufficient to describe it. There is quality as well. Pure math leaves the door too wide open.

I'm not saying the above axioms are not true, only they do not in any way rule out a God's existence or even the existence of something which cannot be isolated/analyzed.

[Yahzi]

dwb
That said, all those ideas you listed have been around for thousands of years, will they not continue for thousands more?
Probably. What this tells you is that these ideas have some other value than their truth content. They may not be true, but they clearly serve some purpose anyway. The trick is figuring out what that purpose is.

For instance, racism serves to allow people to exploit other people. Whether it is true or not has zero effect on its ability to let you enslave somebody else. You don't need other people to be inferior to you, you just need everyone involved to believe it is true. So as long as people want to exploit others, racism will be around.

DM
You can simply be suspending judgement due to lack of evidence on either side. That's really no different then agnosticism as a conclusion.
I think you've just described the agnostic position, not the atheist position. But I often argue against agnosticism, on the grounds that you have to have an opinion anyway. So agnostics are also soft atheists. Q-Source says it is incoherent: I think redundant is the more appropriate complaint.

My definitions were mostly tongue-in-cheek, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the popular (i.e. meaningful) definition of hard and soft atheist is exactly that: whether you think they should be an atheist too.

A soft atheist doesn't believe in god, but is ok with you believing in god. A hard atheist doesn't believe in god, and doesn't think you should either.

I once read someone who described themselves as an agressive agnostic: "I don't know and you don't know either!" (Was that Randi?). So even with agnosticism you can have the dichotomy of hard and soft: the attitude is whether you think your thinking is sound enough to pass the test of reason, and thus ought to be accepted as reasonable by others.

This makes us hard atheists sound like fundies, because we really are tellying you what you should be thinking. But that is not something to be ashamed of. The entire point of Reason is that it allows me to control your actions without the use of force. If you wish to remain Reasonable, you will conform your actions to the rules of Reason by yourself. Reason is cool, it allows all sorts of good things and it prevents lots of violence, but it isn't free: occasionally you have to do things you don't want to do. Like stop believing in unreasonable things.

All rational people are always open to changing their minds when presented with new evidence. That's not hard or soft, just reasonable. So the question to ask yourself is this: do you think other people are justified in their belief in gods? If you say "yes" or "maybe," then you are a soft atheist. If you say "no," then you are a hard atheist.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Yahzi
For instance, racism serves to allow people to exploit other people. Whether it is true or not has zero effect on its ability to let you enslave somebody else. You don't need other people to be inferior to you, you just need everyone involved to believe it is true. So as long as people want to exploit others, racism will be around. Indeed. One can argue that organized religion seeks to do the same thing. It's not enough to believe in god, you also have to do whatever the church tells you. Churches are run by the same mortal, flawed humans that attend ...what makes church officials any more of "agents of god" than the average attendee? Nothing really, but they purport to speak on behalf of god to control others.

As for being a "fundie atheist", I think that's something Franko used to drive at with his A-theist garbage. Atheists that preach their lack of belief can almost, sometimes, sound like a religion in and of themselves. Of course, by the very definition of atheist that makes no sense. Furthermore, not every like-minded group of people are a cult or religion. Then again, reason and Franko didn't go hand-in-hand very often. :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Basically the formula is "If E not C" then we get "C" so "not E".

You can also show a claim is superfluous, this is actually one of the easiest and quickest ways to get rid of a claim. Basically this makes the claim lose epistemic status in favor of alternatives.

Basically both reasons(sometimes even that of contradiction) can be employed when dealing with a deity. The fundamentalist deity can be shown to be disproven by direct means: sometimes contradiction, other times by more deductive means, example:

If the fundamentalist God exists then evolution cannot be true.

Evolution is true.

Thus the fundamentalist God cannot exist.

The above is provisional as evolution could be false, though that is highly improbable.

I guess it depends on what you mean by the "fundamentalist God", but I think that it would be more accurate to say that if Evolution is true, then the Fundamentalists are incorrect in their assertions about God (assuming that by fundamentalist you mean people who believe the world was created in 6 24 hour days). Whether evolution is true or not doesn't say anything about a deity - just what people think about that deity.

If I think that my car can go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, but you in fact prove that it would take my car at least 10 seconds to go from o to 60, you haven't proved that my car doesn't exist. You have merely shown that I was wrong about the car.

[DialecticMaterialist]

A soft atheist doesn't believe in god, but is ok with you believing in god. A hard atheist doesn't believe in god, and doesn't think you should either.

I'd say you more described the difference between a missionary and non-missionary atheist.

The above is a question of values and not beliefs. I can for example say "There is absolutely no way a God exists, but it's ok if you believe in him."

or "I don't believe in God and neither should you."

There we have a hard atheist who is doesn't care if others are theist, and a soft atheist who wants to spread his atheism.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I guess it depends on what you mean by the "fundamentalist God", but I think that it would be more accurate to say that if Evolution is true, then the Fundamentalists are incorrect in their assertions about God (assuming that by fundamentalist you mean people who believe the world was created in 6 24 hour days). Whether evolution is true or not doesn't say anything about a deity - just what people think about that deity.

If I think that my car can go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, but you in fact prove that it would take my car at least 10 seconds to go from o to 60, you haven't proved that my car doesn't exist. You have merely shown that I was wrong about the car.


Well by fundamentalist I mean the God literally described in the Bible. Mainly the literal Xian one.

And if the specific God you are claiming exists supposedly created the world in 6 days, then disproving that disproves that specific God.

Lets say I state "I have a device kills all bird on the planet."

And you see a bird still around, you can say "You're wrong." Now I may have a device but not one that kills all birds on the planet.

Likewise the fundies may still have a God, but it is not the literal God of the Bible. That specific God has been disproven.

It's like this,

If FG then C.

If E not C.

E, therefore not C.

Therefore not FG.

[Fade]

I think the hard athiests are humanists

Not to pick at Nits here, Yahzi, but I would say this isn't necessarily true. To me, Humanism isn't simply looking out for our own interests, but looking towards ourselves with compassion, and reason, and dignity. I can think of many instances where a hard atheist isn't necessarily a humanist at all, but rather an egotist looking out for their own agenda.

TylerD:

There are different types of atheists, as there are different types of theists. The ideaologies are obviously related, but the specifics can vary greatly. The distinctions we draw in the statements we use to describe atheism are, as I said before, ways to distinguish what we truly feel, rather than what our limited language would have us feeling.

The statement:

I do not think X happens.

is almost the same as

X does not happen.


The distinction we draw isn't literal, as such. The differences are usually shown after the fact. Just as one christian may say "I am a baptist" and another will say "I am a lutheran", some atheists say "God doesn't exist." while others say "I don't see any reason to believe god exist, but my opinion is far from set in stone."

I happen to be of the latter category. The hardest type of atheism is something that I find just as indefensible and illogical as rabid fundamentalist religiosity.


As an aside:

I dislike the term agnostic. It was coined to offset the term "atheism" which was seen as almost obscene at the time. "ATHEIST? YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!?!?" they would cry.

But nobody would screech at agnostics :D

I think it's in human nature to distrust people who so reject the things we hold as true. I know I do. The super-soft type of atheism that agnosticism is, is much more palatable.

But perhaps I shouldn't open this can of worms.

[plindboe]

I'm 99.999999999% sure that there is no God. To be 100% sure of something is the same as faith. Maybe there exist a god, maybe he's a miniature blender or a huge pencil. The chances of this are of course extremely minute, but how can anyone know for sure?

Peter :)

[thaiboxerken]

I suppose it is with exactly that same "Degree Of Certainty" that I admit God could exist.

Not the same, my degree of certainy is based in reality and not dreams.

How am I supposed to provide evidence for something that I believe should only be accepted on a personal level?

This is just an evasion. The claim that there is a god is not one of philosophy, it is one that deals with the nature of the universe. It is a claim that must be tested with science to be considered fact.

If there were definitive and incontrovertible proof of God, there would be no choice whatsoever as to religion. Kiss your free will goodbye.

There is no basis for this premise, is there? Some people worship fire, and there is definitive evidence of fire, yet they still have free will.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by plindboe
Maybe there exist a god, maybe he's a miniature blender or a huge pencil. The chances of this are of course extremely minute, but how can anyone know for sure?

Peter :)

Which is another reason I cannot believe in gods, no one has a definition of what "god" is. Gods seem to stay undefined, vague and dynamic. How can I even think a god exists if no one can tell me what a god is?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Which is another reason I cannot believe in gods, no one has a definition of what "god" is. Gods seem to stay undefined, vague and dynamic. How can I even think a god exists if no one can tell me what a god is?
I'm not saying that you should think a god exists, I'm simply saying that anything is possible. It might be highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it can be ruled out.

Personally I see no reason to begin believing in such a superior being, since there really is no evidence or anything that point to the existance of such a being at all. Also when considering that the need for religion, in human nature, can be explained when looking at the evolution that led to the modern man.

That we have not seen any evidence however doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. It just means that it can't be ruled out.

Peter :)

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not saying that you should think a god exists, I'm simply saying that anything is possible. It might be highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it can be ruled out.

I don't agree. Square circles are impossible.


Personally I see no reason to begin believing in such a superior being, since there really is no evidence or anything that point to the existance of such a being at all. Also when considering that the need for religion, in human nature, can be explained when looking at the evolution that led to the modern man.

That we have not seen any evidence however doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. It just means that it can't be ruled out.

Peter :)

Yes, it can be ruled out simply because there is no evidence of a god, no definition of what "god" is.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't agree. Square circles are impossible.

Good point.:o It's a contradictory notion and therefore impossible. The existance of a god(not the Christian omnipotent God) however doesn't contradict anything.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, it can be ruled out simply because there is no evidence of a god, no definition of what "god" is.
We haven't found any evidence, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any. 20 years ago we didn't have any evidence of the existance of planets orbiting other stars than our sun. Does that mean that those planets didn't exist back then?

If there is no clear definition of what god is, that increases the chances even more of finding a being that could fit the loose criteria.

Peter :)

PS.Hmm, maybe square circles could exist, when considering more dimensions than 3.;) Just a thought.

[thaiboxerken]

We haven't found any evidence, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any. 20 years ago we didn't have any evidence of the existance of planets orbiting other stars than our sun. Does that mean that those planets didn't exist back then?

Classic appeal to ignorance and nothing more, your arguement holds no ground.

If there is no clear definition of what god is, that increases the chances even more of finding a being that could fit the loose criteria.

No, it actually makes it that much more improbable that evidence will be found. Until we know what we are looking for, how can we find it? Once someone defines what "god" is, then the search for evidence can begin. So far, there is no defintion, the characteristics of this "god" aren't given.

To illustrate this point, go find me a pugutwidgel, or evidence of one.


PS.Hmm, maybe square circles could exist, when considering more dimensions than 3.;) Just a thought.

Maybe the insane will consider this possibility, but i'm not insane.

[Yahzi]

Fade
I agree. I am still working out this new take on agnosticism/atheism. Right now I think an agnostic is one who does not believe, but for some reason thinks it might be ok for you to believe. An athiest doesn't believe, and thinks you shouldn't either (assuming you wish to be considered rational).

plindboe
PS.Hmm, maybe square circles could exist, when considering more dimensions than 3.
No. The number of dimensions is part of the context of the ideas of squares and circles. This is like saying, maybe God could exist if by God we mean cheese graters.

And also, about that plague attack at the local pub... it sure came over them all sudden like!

:D

[plindboe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Classic appeal to ignorance and nothing more, your arguement holds no ground.
Try making an argument yourself or challenge my argument instead of just telling me your opinion of my argument. To argue that there's no evidence of something means that it doesn't exist is naive and childish to say the least, and that is why I made the comparison to show that something can exist without any evidence being available and your argument was easily confuted.


Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, it actually makes it that much more improbable that evidence will be found. Until we know what we are looking for, how can we find it? Once someone defines what "god" is, then the search for evidence can begin. So far, there is no defintion, the characteristics of this "god" aren't given.

To illustrate this point, go find me a pugutwidgel, or evidence of one.
Since there's no definition of a pugutwidgel anything new that we discover can be called a pugutwidgel. If we instead had a clear definition, that a pugutwidgel is a 200 meter tall bunny rabbit, it would prove much more difficult to find one.

As we have it now, we could call anything that started the Big Bang for a god, or we could call any being that spawned life on Earth for a god, or any being that have enormous power could be regarded as a god. With no clear definition the possibilities are numerous.


Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe the insane will consider this possibility, but i'm not insane.
Oh, there's nothing insane about speculating about other dimensions. The string theory has a total of 10 dimensions in all.

Peter :)

[Yahzi]

plindboe
To argue that there's no evidence of something means that it doesn't exist is naive and childish
But to argue for the existance of things without evidence is insane. It means that the phrase "deos not exist" has no meaning. It allows for the existance of everything.

"Ruled out" means "not in accordance with reason." Yes, it is possible that invisible pink unicorns exist, but it is unreasonable to think they do.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Yahzi
But to argue for the existance of things without evidence is insane. It means that the phrase "deos not exist" has no meaning. It allows for the existance of everything.

"Ruled out" means "not in accordance with reason." Yes, it is possible that invisible pink unicorns exist, but it is unreasonable to think they do.
No, it is not insane. Insanity means mental illness or disorder, while religion is part of human nature. You can however argue that it is irrational. But since there is neither evidence for or against the existance of a god it is therefore irrational to make a final conclusion about whether such a being does exist or not.

Peter :)

[TylerD]

Originally posted by plindboe
No, it is not insane. Insanity means mental illness or disorder, while religion is part of human nature.

No it's not part of human nature, this is pure speculation. Neuroscientists have been able to generate religious experiences by stimulating the temporal lobes in our brain with magnetic waves. But that doesn't mean religion is "in our nature".

Originally posted by plindboe
You can however argue that it is irrational. But since there is neither evidence for or against the existance of a god it is therefore irrational to make a final conclusion about whether such a being does exist or not.

I don't need evidence against the existence of God. I don't have any evidence that there aren't ivnisible pink unicorns flying around my house either. Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by TylerD
No it's not part of human nature, this is pure speculation.

Then explain why religion is found in all cultures throughout human history.

Originally posted by TylerD
I don't need evidence against the existence of God. I don't have any evidence that there aren't ivnisible pink unicorns flying around my house either. Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous.
You believe that God doesn't exist without any evidence to support your belief. In your own words: "Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous". Hard atheists aren't much different than religious fundamentalists; you believe you hold the absolutely truth and everyone else that doesn't share your beliefs are wrong.

It's interesting that people who deny religion, behave no differently than people who accept it. It shows how deeply rooted religion is in humans. It's quite amusing that you don't realize it.

Peter :)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by plindboe

You believe that God doesn't exist without any evidence to support your belief. In your own words: "Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous". Hard atheists aren't much different than religious fundamentalists; you believe you hold the absolutely truth and everyone else that doesn't share your beliefs are wrong.

It's interesting that people who deny religion, behave no differently than people who accept it. It shows how deeply rooted religion is in humans. It's quite amusing that you don't realize it.

Peter :)
Answer clearly and specifically please.

I have invisible pink unicorns in my garage. There is no evidence either for or against. Do you 1) believe in those unicorns, 2) disbelieve, or 3) take an agnostic stance?

If the third option, would you claim it is irrational to disbelieve in these unicorns until some evidence is provided?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Answer clearly and specifically please.

I have invisible pink unicorns in my garage. There is no evidence either for or against. Do you 1) believe in those unicorns, 2) disbelieve, or 3) take an agnostic stance?

If the third option, would you claim it is irrational to disbelieve in these unicorns until some evidence is provided?
I would disbelieve it. But I would acknowledge that there is a minute chance of the posibility.

Peter :)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by plindboe

I would disbelieve it. But I would acknowledge that there is a minute chance of the posibility.

Peter :)
That doesn't sound too different from my atheistic position on the existence of god. Given the complete lack of supporting evidence, it is not irrational to disbelieve, at least until some evidence can be provided.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

That doesn't sound too different from my atheistic position on the existence of god. Given the complete lack of supporting evidence, it is not irrational to disbelieve, at least until some evidence can be provided.
Indeed. I'm an atheist too. I feel we're mostly talking past each other, without realizing that all of us, at least in this part of the discussion, doesn't believe in God. I'm simply argueing against taking the final conclusion that God doesn't exist. How can anyone be 100% sure? To be 100% sure of something is in my opinion the same as faith.

Peter :)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by plindboe

How can anyone be 100% sure? To be 100% sure of something is in my opinion the same as faith.


So, for one to state that there are no pink unicorns on earth is a statement of faith?

[thaiboxerken]

Try making an argument yourself or challenge my argument instead of just telling me your opinion of my argument.

Pointing out the fallacy of your arguement is part of discussion.


To argue that there's no evidence of something means that it doesn't exist is naive and childish to say the least,

If there is no evidence for an extraordinary claim, then it is safe to assume that it doesn't exist. It's within all reason to say so.

and that is why I made the comparison to show that something can exist without any evidence being available and your argument was easily confuted.

You failed in this attempt by appealing to ignorance.

Since there's no definition of a pugutwidgel anything new that we discover can be called a pugutwidgel.

This is true, but it's also dishonest to claim that such a thing exists without defining it. This is what the god-believers do, they keep their god undefined, and therefore unfalsifiable.

If we instead had a clear definition, that a pugutwidgel is a 200 meter tall bunny rabbit, it would prove much more difficult to find one.

Yes, but it is a little closer to being falsifiable.


As we have it now, we could call anything that started the Big Bang for a god, or we could call any being that spawned life on Earth for a god, or any being that have enormous power could be regarded as a god. With no clear definition the possibilities are numerous.

Yes, and this is a dishonest approach to the "god" question. It's simply keeping "god" in the gaps of science. It's dishonesty in motion.


Oh, there's nothing insane about speculating about other dimensions. The string theory has a total of 10 dimensions in all.

Peter :)

As was stated by another, circles and squares implies the dimension as well. To say that square circles could exist in another dimension is foolish.

[c4ts]

Would you please stop using "invisible pink unicorns" as an analogy? It's inherently contradictory, because the unicorns can't be invisible in the same sense that they are pink. "Invisible unicorn" is a much better analogy.

However, this means saying "there are no invisible pink unicorns on Earth" is not necessarily a statement of faith. It takes the same amount of belief to say there are no square circles.

[thaiboxerken]

You believe that God doesn't exist without any evidence to support your belief. In your own words: "Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous".

The lack of evidence, the lack of a definition and the claims about god that go against scientific knowledge are all evidence against gods.

Hard atheists aren't much different than religious fundamentalists; you believe you hold the absolutely truth and everyone else that doesn't share your beliefs are wrong.

Soft atheists are just weak-willed individuals that do not want to state the obvious fact that there is no god. Yes, it's possible, but so are pink unicorns. I'll say both gods and pink unicorns do not exist and I'd be right to say so.

It's interesting that people who deny religion, behave no differently than people who accept it. It shows how deeply rooted religion is in humans. It's quite amusing that you don't realize it.

No, this is a discussion forum. I highly doubt that "hard" atheists that post here go door-to-door trying to "spread the word". We behave much differently. There is no scientific basis to claim that there is a god. Positive claims are the ones that need evidence, negative ones are the default position.

"There is no god" is as factual as "there are no pink unicorns".

[thaiboxerken]

"However, this means saying "there are no invisible pink unicorns on Earth" is not necessarily a statement of faith"

It's not a statement of faith. It's a statement based on current scientific knowledge of the universe.

[TylerD]

Originally posted by plindboe
Then explain why religion is found in all cultures throughout human history.

Almost all cultures believed that the sun revolved around the earth. I guess that must be in our nature too huh?

Originally posted by plindboe
You believe that God doesn't exist without any evidence to support your belief. In your own words: "Believing something when there is absolutely no evidence for it is completely rediculous". Hard atheists aren't much different than religious fundamentalists; you believe you hold the absolutely truth and everyone else that doesn't share your beliefs are wrong.

I don't need evidence to support a negative position. Just take my example of the invisible pink unicorns flying around my house. There is no evidence to support it, so I don't believe it, And anyone who believes it is a moron. And just so you know, I'm not hard atheist, don't presume that I am.

Originally posted by plindboe
It's interesting that people who deny religion, behave no differently than people who accept it. It shows how deeply rooted religion is in humans. It's quite amusing that you don't realize it.

No surprise there. Half the people who prefess religious beliefs don't practice what they preach. They just mindlessly parrot it from their childhood. And conviction is deeply rooted in our nature, not just religious convictions. For instance, people were awfully convinced (as I stated above) that the sun revolved around the earth. It doesn't make it any more valid of a belief just because a lot of people believe it. Just like Randi said "No amount of belief makes something a fact."

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"However, this means saying "there are no invisible pink unicorns on Earth" is not necessarily a statement of faith"

It's not a statement of faith. It's a statement based on current scientific knowledge of the universe.

No, it's a statement based on the fact that you have to see the unicorn in order to say it is pink, and you can't see pink on something that is invisible.

[thaiboxerken]

No, it's a statement based on the fact that you have to see the unicorn in order to say it is pink, and you can't see pink on something that is invisible. [/QUOTE]

No, it's a statement based on scientific knowledge. If something is invisible, it cannot have color as it does not filtrate color out of light. An invisible being has no color. No faith involved.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]

No, it's a statement based on scientific knowledge. If something is invisible, it cannot have color as it does not filtrate color out of light. An invisible being has no color. No faith involved.

Yeah, but you don't need to know how light works or any of that just to figure out that if you can't see something you've never seen before, you don't know what color it is. You might conclude that color is a property of visible things, something which the unicorn is not. Science explains why this is true, the contradiction itself is not a truth garnered from scientific knowledge.

[thaiboxerken]

"Yeah, but you don't need to know how light works or any of that just to figure out that if you can't see something you've never seen before, you don't know what color it is."

No, I'm saying that it cannot have color if it is invisible.

"You might conclude that color is a property of visible things, something which the unicorn is not. "

This is what the correct conclusion is.

"Science explains why this is true, the contradiction itself is not a truth garnered from scientific knowledge."

Scientific methodology is used to conclude the fact that invisible things cannot have color.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Which is another reason I cannot believe in gods, no one has a definition of what "god" is. Gods seem to stay undefined, vague and dynamic. How can I even think a god exists if no one can tell me what a god is?

Well sorry to nitpick as I am a hard atheist myself but I don't think not being to define something disproves it. Most of my life I couldn't define something which exsted. A lot of us still can't.

Words like "big", "gene", "fast", "human" and "science" lack any simple/universally accepted definition.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Okay, I give up. You guys win.

There are two completely different attitudes in atheism. I was mistaken in thinking this.

Soft atheism=I do not believe that God exists.
Hard atheism=I believe that no God exists.

I didn't see any fundamental difference between the two, just like there is no fundamental difference between these two.

Soft Atheism: I see no evidence to support the existance of a deity, and therefore expect that deities do not exist at all.

Hard Atheism: There is no such thing as a deity.

Soft atheism is not making a claim, hard atheism is making a claim. That is the difference. Hard atheism specifically states that there is no possibility of a deity (which includes refutation of any future evidence), while soft atheism simply observes that though there is no evidence supporting either claim (existance or non-existance), the more logically sound position is that of non-existance given the current available evidence.

To use the invisible unicorn example, someone claims that one exists in their garage. I can say "I have seen no evidence to support the existance of invisible unicorns, therefore I don't expect that one exists in your garage." This would be soft aunicornism, as it still leaves the option open for the claimant to provide evidence.

On the other hand, I could say "That's ridiculous, there's no such thing as invisible unicorns" This would be hard aunicornism, as I have not left the option open for further evidence to be presented. Further, I have specifically made the claim that unicorns don't exist at all, and should offer evidence to support my own claim.

The problem with this comparison (atheism vs. aunicornism) is that we can actually research the existance of invisible unicorns. No supernatural traits have been assigned to this creature other than it being invisible (and very sneaky), so we can use existing scientific knowledge to say that invisible unicorns on earth are an impossibility. Such research is impossible with the current definitions of deities however. Should someone assign further traits to this creature which explains why it has never left evidence of its existance, the case would be reopened and observers would reevaluate their positions.

In other words, pink unicorns and deities are not good comparisons to make when trying to support either atheism position.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hard atheism specifically states that there is no possibility of a deity (which includes refutation of any future evidence),

Straw man. And given your categories what do you call someone who says God probably does not exist? That the God claim is false but provisonally so?

[Yahzi]

ArmchairPhysicist
You are so full of it.

Hard atheism specifically states that there is no rationally justified possibility of a deity (which includes, by the rules of reason, the possible refutation by presentation of new evidence), Implicit in the rationalist position are all the rules of ration, including changing your mind when the evidence changes.

The only claim that hard atheists are making is that the rules of reason and logic require one to exclude the meaningful possibility of god, as long as one wishes to be counted as rational. This does not, in any way, equate to your absurd claim that to be an atheist is to posess an unshakable faith in the non-existance of god, or even to beleive that god is necessary false. God is only false if you choose to limit yourself to rational means of knowledge. Now whether you should do that or not is an entirely different argument, which has little to do with atheism.

No atheist I have ever read, spoken to, or heard of, has ever taken the absurd position you outline. However, I understand why you bring it up, as virtually every religious person I have ever spoken to has endorsed that position. They believe in god, and no amount of evidence will change that. So I can see how you might think that atheists were just like you, only rooting for a different team: but we aren't. We are outside protesting against the game itself.

In fact, the rejection of that religious position - and therefore the acknowledgement that evidence must be the final arbiter of belief - is precisly what leads to atheism. We are not atheists because we have faith, but rather, because we do not accept faith as equal to reason in the search for truth.

Soft atheists are simply people that, for whatever reason, lack a belief in god. Hard atheists lack that belief for rational reasons, and thus expect other rational people to either accept their conclusions or point out where they erred in their logic. The second part being an integral part of ration. Which you would not understand, since you're not really on the rationalist's team.