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?

[Difflugia]

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.

You added to that definition, though:

If you think you are a dogmatic atheist then you must answer the question of what was there before this universe came into existence.

Is the equivocation intentional?

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.

"Turkish philosopher?" Are you serious? You really should double-check the stuff you're cutting and pasting. Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is this guy.

"Atheism’s other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name.

Torquemada calling the kettle black?

[JoeyKnothead]

It is irrational to say that there is no God.

Then it's also irrational to say there are no leprechauns.

I'd caution folks against thinking if it's irrational to say there are no gods, that it's rational to say there are.

[Difflugia]

I did and Stanford's philosophy department explained to him how that is an inconsistent position.

So, when "Stanford's philosophy department" channeled themselves through your incomplete and misunderstood quote mine, they neglected to finish reading their own quoted article, because the article acknowledges that both positions are accepted by various philosophers. They further apparently failed to realize that their own article isn't a description of what is, but is an argument for what ought to be. The next time you're receiving their psychic transmissions, you'll be sure to let them know, right?

It is irrational to say that there is no God.

Whatever you say, dear.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #23]

So, when "Stanford's philosophy department" channeled themselves through your incomplete and misunderstood quote mine, they neglected to finish reading their own quoted article, because the article acknowledges that both positions are accepted by various philosophers. They further apparently failed to realize that their own article isn't a description of what is, but is an argument for what ought to be. The next time you're receiving their psychic transmissions, you'll be sure to let them know, right?

No, both positions are not accepted. Saying you have a lack of belief that there is a god is not the same as saying that there is no god. Having a lack of belief is not accepted as atheism it is expressed as a psychological preference.

The Stanford article does accept a more dogmatic stance saying there is no god. But trying to prove that there is no god is extremely difficult.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...But trying to prove that there is no god is extremely difficult.
...

Wait'll ya see folks trying to prove there is one, then you'll really see extremely difficult.

[Miles]

[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.

But you posed no question in our exchange.

YOU: "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."

MY response: "Actually, no atheist has to answer anything. Why can't they simply hold that no god exists without explaining a thing?"

YOUR response: "Because to say there is no god means you are proclaiming that you know what there was before this universe began."

MY last response: "So your contention is that if someone doesn't know what there was before this universe began, god is the answer? Really??"
....................These users thanked the author Miles for the post (total 4):
.........................brunumb, Tcg, Difflugia, benchwarmer


YOUR current response: "No, my question is will anyone actually try to defend the dogmatic stance that there is no God?"

AH HA! Now we get a question, and the first one in our exchange no less, although it has nothing to do with your claim that "Because to say there is no god means you are proclaiming that you know what there was before this universe began." However, in answer to your question here; having seen some atheists take such a stance I believe some would indeed try to defend it. After all, Christians defend the existence of god with nothing more than unreliable oral folklore and the questionable writings of ancient scribes, plus the many failed arguments of more recent apologists.


.

[bjs1]

[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? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s 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. Atheism’s “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/ ”

"Atheism’s 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 O’Hair, 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.

I’m not sure I follow. All of these quotes may be true. Some of them certainly have at least some truth to them. But how do this lead to the idea that people aren’t dogmatic atheists? Whether we think dogmatic atheism (or any other form of atheism for that matter) is a reasonable position or not, it is clear that there are dogmatic atheists. Some of them were extremely intelligent men and women who developed coherent worldviews that include the denial of any kind of Divine Being.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #27]

I’m not sure I follow. All of these quotes may be true. Some of them certainly have at least some truth to them. But how do this lead to the idea that people aren’t dogmatic atheists? Whether we think dogmatic atheism (or any other form of atheism for that matter) is a reasonable position or not, it is clear that there are dogmatic atheists. Some of them were extremely intelligent men and women who developed coherent worldviews that include the denial of any kind of Divine Being.

You cannot say scientifically or rationally that God does not exist. In fact, the only way to scientifically produce the one universe that we see and experience is for there to be a God.

Materialistic/rationalistic leads to two possible outcomes either we really do not exist. Which we obviously do or that there is an infinite number of universes out there somewhere with an infinite number of Earthscience Guys. I like myself but I do not know if I like myself that much.

Atheism is losing all of its rationalistic and scientific underpinnings.

[Jose Fly]

You cannot say scientifically or rationally that God does not exist.

So what's your view on the existence of Brahma, Vishnu, Allah, Odin, Zeus, etc.?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #26]

AH HA! Now we get a question, and the first one in our exchange no less, although it has nothing to do with your claim that "Because to say there is no god means you are proclaiming that you know what there was before this universe began." However, in answer to your question here; having seen some atheists take such a stance I believe some would indeed try to defend it. After all, Christians defend the existence of god with nothing more than unreliable oral folklore and the questionable writings of ancient scribes, plus the many failed arguments of more recent apologists.

That is your defense of dogmatic atheism.
Atheism has lost is scientific underpinnings because of the failure of materialism to explain the universe. So there is no way for anyone to say that there is no God.