Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaian Atheists United

Back to Guilds

A safe and friendly place for Atheists to be themselves. 

Tags: Atheism, Theology, Philosophy, Science, Logic 

Reply The Main Discussion Place
Soft Atheism vs. Hard Atheism Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Which are you?
  Hard Atheist
  Soft Atheist
  I don't care, just gimme gold.
View Results

Raticiel

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:12 pm


MiniSiets
Raticiel
But isn't this what every debate between theism and atheism will always end up like? whee logic will never tell which option is better. The only discourse that won't be just a pile of nonsense will be a practical discourse then. Yes, the one that will include all abortions, euthanasies, suicides, meaning of life, political stuff and - the most important one - everyday life on a person. Yes, the discourse that can't be resolved without tanks and bombs, insulting and forcing your own views.

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that because we can't deal with reality in absolute proofs that the next best thing is to simply throw our arms in the air and say that no position is more logical than another. I mean, again, it's not like if you just suddenly start believing that if you drop a rock it won't fall, then the rock really doesn't fall. That's simply not how reality works no matter how much someone tries to make a religion out of it.

I'm not 100% sure what do you mean by that, but I'm sure reality has not much to do with logic... And as theism and atheism are some abstract theories which use logical arguments there's no way one side can win, because both theists and atheists, and agnostics, and skeptics use the same logic. Logic is just a form, it only shows which reasoning is proper.
And note one thing: religion is a fact. It's a part of this so-called reality. If humans are making up religions - there must be a reason for that. And that's when it all goes into stuff like sociology, anthropology, psychology. Those are "sciences", they're not always accurate, but only those are giving any satysfying answers, at least to some people. And all they involve are other facts happening in the world, and that will always involve interpretation. But philosophical theories should always remain clear, without any ideology behind them. They won't produce many answers that way, but they might at least look like they're more certain. The key is reasoning, logic. But it's still just a tool. As limited as we are.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:22 pm


alteregoivy
I would say that I am a "hard" atheist when it comes to specific religious claims, and a "soft" atheist when it comes to more nonspecific claims.

For example, I think the likelihood of the Judeo-Christian God is so unlikely as to hardly be worth considering. Certainly the Bible is so unlikely in its claims, and since Judaism and Christianity are based off of this book.... You see where I'm going.

In contrast, when someone changes the definition of "God" into something more reasonable, I am more willing to treat it from a "soft" atheist point of view. For example, the idea that the universe itself is somehow conscious. Or the idea of a "primary mover" and calling that God, no matter what it may turn out to be. The thing about these ideas is that they don't make specific claims that go against our view of the universe; there are a lot of things that we don't understand about the universe yet, and these ideas of "God" don't necessarily go against our understanding of the universe now.

As opposed to claims on this Earth that defy the laws of physics and such.

...Make sense? sweatdrop
It's nice you see the difference between "god of religion" and "god of metaphysics".
Well, Aristotle even called his metaphysical theory a "teology", and that kind of god has nothing to do with religious visions of gods, at least he certainly won't answer to any prayers wink
Arche, substance, air, water, fire, Logos... those are all "gods". I think the one to blame is language again, the way all terms mixed up in history, the way christianity "borrowed" ancient philosophy...
I still don't like the term "soft-atheism", perhaps there is a better way to describe such position? I'm just wondering... rolleyes

Raticiel

Reply
The Main Discussion Place

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum