Is there such a thing as a dogmatic atheist?

[EarthScienceguy]

A dogmatic atheist flatly denies that there is a Divine Being.
A skeptical atheist doubts the ability of the human mind to determine, whether or not there is a God.
A critical atheist maintains that there is no valid proof for the existence of God.

Especially with the state that cosmology is in. I maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be a dogmatic atheist. If you think you are a dogmatic atheist then you must answer the question of what was there before this universe came into existence.

Question for debate: Is there such a thing as a dogmatic atheist?

[TRANSPONDER]

A dogmatic atheist would say there was no god before their universe began. They would not say, "I have no idea what there was before the universe began".

Then I misunderstood your definition:

A dogmatic atheist flatly denies that there is a Divine Being.

I deny that there are gods. I say that with the same confidence that I deny that there are leprechauns in my pocket or that the Taj Mahal is in my bedroom.

Would you clarify your definition? Is this perhaps the beginning of yet another apologetic argument that equivocates on what "possible" means?

Sure. A Dogmatist insist that they are right. A rationalist (to use a convenient term) would say that they can't be 100% sure, but the probability gives them a preferred option.

Now I get you totally and I feel the same way. I am 90+% confident there are no gods. In fact I invest a far higher probability of there being ET species on some planet. But I don't Know, which is why I cannot be dogmatic about it. So I am not a Dogmati atheist. Nor, as I define it, are you. Normally we wouldn't disagree about this piddling difference, but Theist apologists will make a niggling nitpick about being 100% sure (aside that being 110% sure for them is just believing it) so that we have to say 'not claiming to Know, just being pretty darn sure'.

Dogma (at least as I define it) also implies closed - mindedness; no opening for doubt or question. This is what Faith does (aside that they are happy to reason within the box, but don't like to stray outside) while rationalism welcomes doubt and question so long as one is willing to admit being wrong and adopt a better view. Dogmatism refuses that and will break rather than bend (while denying they broke)

"You broke"

"No I didn't."

"But you're on the floor."

"No I'm not."

"Look."

"I've been lower."

"You dissembler!"

"Can't take being beat eh? Loser!"

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #10]

Nope. It is neither a philosophy nor a religion so it can't "a philosophical or religious position." It is also not disbelief; it is lack of belief. Those who have never heard of the concept of god/gods don't disbelieve in them, they lack belief in god/gods.

It's astonishingly straightforward. There is no need to confuse it at least not if one is seeking the truth and clarity.

The definition is not mine

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.
3. The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person.
American Heritage dictionary

a
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b
: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Webster dictionary

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
Britanica


"Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers (e.g., Michael Martin 1990: 463464) join many non-philosophers in defining "atheist" as someone who lacks the belief that God exists. This commits them to adopting the psychological sense of "atheism" discussed above, according to which "atheism" should not be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, "atheism", according to these philosophers, should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of "atheism". The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like "strong" and "weak" (or "positive" and "negative") to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines Bullivants argument in defense of Flews definition; for it implies that what he calls "strong atheism"the proposition (or belief in the sense of "something believed") that there is no Godis not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed "umbrella" term leaves so-called strong atheism (or what some call positive atheism) out in the rain." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/


"The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of "atheism" is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, "Does God exist?" There are only two possible direct answers to this question: "yes", which is theism, and "no", which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like "I dont know", "no one knows", "I dont care", "an affirmative answer has never been established", and "the question is meaningless" are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and "atheism" works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, "nontheist", so the term "atheist" is not needed for that purpose. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/"


So you really should not claim to be an atheist you are a "nontheist". Why would anyone believe YOUR physiological state because physiological states can change? Defining yourself as having a lack of belief simply means that for YOUR physiological state at the present time there is not enough evidence for you to believe. There that would be more in-line agnostics, not an atheist. Which I described as a skeptical atheist or a critical atheist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #9]

So your contention is that if someone doesn't know what there was before this universe began, god is the answer? Really??

No, my question is will anyone actually try to defend the dogmatic stance that there is no God? TCG will not, he believes atheism is a physiological state that a person has or a lack of belief in a god.

The famous philosopher Anthony Flew could not. Watch the Anthony Flew vs. Gary Habermas debate.

My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between
Antony Flew and Gary Habermas
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/ ... s_fac_pubs

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

Now I get you totally and I feel the same way. I am 90+% confident there are no gods. In fact I invest a far higher probability of there being ET species on some planet. But I don't Know, which is why I cannot be dogmatic about it. So I am not a Dogmatic atheist. Nor, as I define it, are you. Normally we wouldn't disagree about this piddling difference, but Theist apologists will make a niggling nitpick about being 100% sure (aside that being 110% sure for them is just believing it) so that we have to say 'not claiming to Know, just being pretty darn sure'.

So you are only 90% sure that Leprechauns do not exist. Really.
So you are only 90% sure that Fariys does not exist. That is interesting also.
You mean that Shrek has a 10% chance of existing. My kids will love to hear that.

If you are not dogmatic about something then anything is possible. Even the make-believe.
So do you believe everything that you think about is actually can be real or could be made to become real?

Rationalism today takes you to the conclusion that there is nothing that is actually real. So I guess that you could believe that Shrek has a chance of existing, that is correct and Santa Claus also.

[bjs1]

A dogmatic atheist flatly denies that there is a Divine Being.

So for this thread a "dogmatic atheists" is defined as someone who flatly denies the existence of God. Since people use the same words to mean different things I just wanted to restate this as a way to establish that I will not veer from it in this thread.

Question for debate: Is there such a thing as a dogmatic atheist?

Yes. Jean-Paul Sartre was the pinnacle of atheists thought over the past 100 years (imo), and the idea that there is no Divine Being was central to his philosophies.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #7]

I deny that there are gods. I say that with the same confidence that I deny that there are leprechauns in my pocket or that the Taj Mahal is in my bedroom.

So are you saying that you deny the existence of God dogmatically? That you are sure that there is no such thing as God.

Would you clarify your definition? Is this perhaps the beginning of yet another apologetic argument that equivocates on what "possible" means?

The question is simple do you believe God exists or not? Answering the question Yes or no would be answering the question dogmatically.

[JoeyKnothead]

A dogmatic atheist flatly denies that there is a Divine Being.
A skeptical atheist doubts the ability of the human mind to determine, whether or not there is a God.
A critical atheist maintains that there is no valid proof for the existence of God.

Especially with the state that cosmology is in. I maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be a dogmatic atheist. If you think you are a dogmatic atheist then you must answer the question of what was there before this universe came into existence.

Question for debate: Is there such a thing as a dogmatic atheist?

It's probably close enough to just say in any group of a given size n, there'll be a dog lover somewhere in amongst em.

As for this atheist, if God starts helping with the chores, and maybe starts kicking in what he can on the bill paying, I'll buy me a suit of clothes and show up to church here and there.

[Difflugia]

I deny that there are gods. I say that with the same confidence that I deny that there are leprechauns in my pocket or that the Taj Mahal is in my bedroom.

So are you saying that you deny the existence of God dogmatically?

I deny the existence of gods. You're the one claiming to be able to define "dogmatically," but haven't.

That you are sure that there is no such thing as God.

As sure as I am that there is no such thing as the Jabberwock.

The question is simple

It always is.

do you believe God exists or not?

No.

Answering the question Yes or no would be answering the question dogmatically.

If that's true, then you've just defined a bunch of atheists as dogmatic in a way that's inconsistent with any of the other defintions you've given so far in this thread. Ask Tcg about the difference between "I don't believe in gods" and "I believe there are no gods."

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #0]

So for this thread a "dogmatic atheists" is defined as someone who flatly denies the existence of God. Since people use the same words to mean different things I just wanted to restate this as a way to establish that I will not veer from it in this thread.

yes that is what it means and thank you because others do.

Yes. Jean-Paul Sartre was the pinnacle of atheists thought over the past 100 years (imo), and the idea that there is no Divine Being was central to his philosophies.

"I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? Its a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. "I dont believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I dont believe." Period. Its a declaration.https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... cist-says/"

"Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.

His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheisms "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.

Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as the ways of reason and science, is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance.
https://www.simpletoremember.com/articl ... worldwide/ "

"Atheisms other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray OHair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively." https://www.simpletoremember.com/articl ... worldwide/

Atheism really has been shown to be nothing more than a physiological belief statement.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #18]

If that's true, then you've just defined a bunch of atheists as dogmatic in a way that's inconsistent with any of the other definitions you've given so far in this thread. Ask Tcg about the difference between "I don't believe in gods" and "I believe there are no gods."

I did and Stanford's philosophy department explained to him how that is an inconsistent position. Stanford explained to him how saying that atheism is a "lack of faith" is a psychological belief statement. It is the equivalent to making the following statement. For me, there is not enough evidence right now to say whether there is a god or not. This would be an agnostic position, not an atheistic position.

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist agrees with Stanford. "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? Its a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. "I dont believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I dont believe." Period. Its a declaration. But in science we dont really do declarations. We say, "Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that." And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesnt know about. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and all that." https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... cist-says/

It is irrational to say that there is no God.