The hard problem

The one the theists talk about is forbidden by the current physics regime.

Gnostic Atheism makes perfect sense ‘ONCE A GOD HAS BEEN DEFINED.’ What don’t you get about this? We can be 100% certain that some gods DO NOT EXIST. They are self-contradictory A god that is 100% water and 100% dry is contradictory and nonexistent.

A god that is 'All Merciful and Just" can not exist. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

A god that has a plan and then intervenes in the world to respond to prayers can not exist.

A god that is omnipresent and then wanders through the Garden of Eden lost and looking for Adam and Eve because he can not find them DOES NOT EXIST.

The new Christian apologetic is that God is no longer All Powerful, as this led to the issue of; ‘Can God make a batch of eggnog so potent that it would kill him?’ If he could, he would not be all powerful because he would be dead. If he couldn’t, he would not be all powerful because his power to make that special batch of eggnog would be limited. This God Does Not Exist./ This is the reason modern Apologists now claim, “God is All POWERFUL AS IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.” This is the NEW apologetic.

SOME GODS DO NOT EXIST … This is a fact. Taking the Gnostic Atheist position against these gods is Completely justified. Furthermore, the more you know about religion and the bullshit arguments the religious use to support their god claims, the more often you are justified in taking the Gnostic Atheist position when attacking THEIR CLAIMS — not THEIR GOD -=— their claims about their god./ Which in the end comes down to about the same thing as all they have are claims with no evidence to support the claims at all.

Gnostic Atheism is a position - I prefer using the term Antitheist, others like the idea of Hard Atheism.

I am an Antitheist with regard to some god claims. I am always an Agnostic Atheist.

<Edit: Because I have the time to check it now.>


I appreciate your efforts and your knowledge of the subject vastly surpasses my limited grasp. I approach various arguments from a hopefully logical origin and am often limited by my mostly layman’s knowledge. No offense intended. Thanks for the exchange. It was enlightening.

Edited to insure maximum sarcasm

Well. He got paid, and might have even had a tenure, for speaking like such a shlep. No offence, but University’s are a joke. A nice little historic campus now serving the one purpose of bringing financial gain to a few intellectual elite through preying on the hopes, dreams, and wallets of young people entering adulthood.

He was very careful to avoid any definitions of being-in-itself. He used “plethora” as a metaphor for something we couldn’t fundamentally understand. And he was a philosopher and that was his main calling in life (to wax on philosophical).

Of course, it is. LOL

What in the wide, wide world of sports does a lack of belief in gawd(s) have to do with ‘the hard problem of consciousness’?
What exactly IS ‘the hard problem of consciousness’?
Do you expect atheism to address the origin of consciousness?
Of course atheism hasn’t room to answer any questions at all about consciousness!
Atheism addresses and ‘has room’ for one thing only: someone says gawd(s) exist and an atheist says they don’t believe it.


Have a hug Cyber. You have been missed.


Thank you so much. That means a lot to me.


Nice seeing you posting Cyber. I miss you.

1 Like

Have you ever heard of rational scepticism?

I ask, because it may be a good space for you to look into, learning about standards of evidence, logical fallacies, and epistemology. These are all great tools for determining what is and isn’t true.

When I say true, I mean objectively and verifiably. (you would probably say materialistic.)

Many people fail to realise, that logical and critical thinking skills aren’t inherent, we must apply ourselves and learn how they work, from reputable and verified sources.

I don’t mean this as an insult, we all start somewhere and I don’t want to see you added to the pile of failed callers that call into the Atheist experience, there’s a reason that nobody, in all of the history of that show have brought anything to counter the position of atheism.

Atheism is the only logical and rational position to hold when it comes to belief in a god or gods; it is also the default position we have at birth.

Most of us are agnostic atheists, a lot of us will change position depending on the god claim, from agnostic to gnostic. for example; I take the position of gnostic atheist towards the Abrahamic god simply because it is logically impossible, contradicts itself and has contrary evidence to many of the claims surrounding it.

What is critical, is to be a rational sceptic as well as an atheist.

To quote Matt Dillahunty, “I want to believe as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible.”


They actually don’t know. It is a problem they assume will appear when they solve/finish a different problem; the easy problem of consciousness; which is more or less figuring out the details of how the human brain works (a work in progress, at best).
They presume that the resolution to the easy problem won’t explain consciousness (to their satisfaction, which in my experience is impossible), so they call that speculation the “hard problem”; then of course demand their opponents solve it on the spot (solve an unknown question which might not exist…), or admit they are wrong.


Touché, Nyar.

I get terribly weary of folks assigning so much to atheism.

1 Like

Thanks, David!

I quite enjoyed this string.

1 Like

For intellectuals, the hard problem and substance dualism (and others topics surely) give them a way to continue to believe that they (humans) are not animals. If religion is the opiate of the masses, this is the opiate ofintellectuals. Basically it is a way to preserve their belief in the soul by calling it something else; so hopefully no one will laugh them out of the room (without being “religious”).


If we check evolution of science we can notice a lot of fails in the past. I live science but everything is without ceternty.

That sounds very disingenuous to me, science has a way better track record than any other methods, it’s errors are relatively small.

Again disingenuous, we can and do have scientific facts that are irrefutable, but expecting anything to be infallible is bound to produce straw men like this one, I’ve not met many people who thought irrefutable scientific facts meant science is or ever will be infallible. Also the methods are not just good at self policing, they improve when needed or the opportunity presents itself.

To be fair, @Sheldon , @patriciadeblois may be setting this up to suggest another method of systematically studying the natural world with far fewer fails.


@patriciadeblois second language is English FYI

1 Like

I understand why you did that, it’s a shame because the subject is interesting and worthy of discussion. But there is a class of so-called atheist who’s modus operandi is hostility, ridicule and irrationality. I regard Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and (to a slightly lesser extent) Peter Atkins as excellent examples of this.

This is why there’s a growing view among philosophers that militant atheism has much in common with religious dogmatism from - say - the time of Galileo. Just as the catholic officialdom of the time persecuted those who refused to accept the Church’s interpretation of scripture, the scientism movement of today will persecute those who refuse to accept the militant atheists interpretation of science.

They are mirror images, each intolerant of alternative views and each dogmatic about their interpretation of reality.

The request wasn’t granted.