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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #29]

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

This does not seem like much of a defense of atheism.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #29]

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

This does not seem like much of a defense of atheism.

Because it wasn't intended to be one. How about answering the question now?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #32]

Because it wasn't intended to be one. How about answering the question now?

That is outside of the OP. The OP is about defending atheism not a defense of theism. Can anyone make a convincing defense for atheism?
Can anyone defend the belief that there is no god?

[Miles]

[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.

Nope. It's in answer to your: ". . . my question is will anyone actually try to defend the dogmatic stance that there is no God?"

Atheism has lost is scientific underpinnings because of the failure of materialism to explain the universe.

But atheism never had any scientific underpinnings to lose. Do you not know what atheism is? .. FYI, It's either a denial of the existence of god because of a lack of convincing evidence, OR it's a lack of belief in the existence of god because of a lack of convincing evidence. Most atheists are of the latter variety.

So there is no way for anyone to say that there is no God.

Sure there is. It's for the same reason most theists say there are no woodland faeries, flying unicorns, or ogres. Or do you think faeries, flying unicorns, and ogres may actually exist?


.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #32]

Because it wasn't intended to be one. How about answering the question now?

That is outside of the OP. The OP is about defending atheism not a defense of theism. Can anyone make a convincing defense for atheism?
Can anyone defend the belief that there is no god?

LOL....never ask a creationist questions unless you're prepared to spend lots of time chasing them around, trying to get them to answer.

Given how often you've repeated this behavior of ducking and dodging questions and such, I always wonder if it's ever struck you that maybe, just maybe, it's an indication of the inherent weakness of your positions. I don't harbor any illusion that you've engaged in that sort of introspection of course.

[Diogenes]

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?

This is an odd debate topic in that a definition of a "dogmatic atheist" has been given; one who denies there is a divine being. The definition of a 'skeptical atheist' is even more problematic. The skeptic simply doubts there is a god; he is 'skeptical' of God's existence.

I'd say the definition offered for a 'critical atheist' is closest to what most atheists claim is their position.

But what is the point of asking if there are those who "flatly deny there is a divine being?"

I flatly deny there is a divine being but reject the label "dogmatic atheist." Christian theologians like Paul Tillich also deny God is a being. They assert God is much more than a mere 'being.' In fact, thinking of God as a being is a primitive concept that better fits gods like Zeus and Odin rather than a sophisticated "God" who does not merely exist, but is beyond existence; not a being, but 'the very ground of being,' to use Tillich's terminology.

The other thing that strikes me is 'Why are so many theists (apparently) obsessed with the definition of "atheist?"'

* * *
Something that puzzles me in the OP is the claim there are no 'dogmatic atheists.' I tend to agree in that being dogmatic about one's beliefs seems more the province of the theist or religionist.' The definition of 'dogmatic' is 'one who is inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true' and is generally viewed as a fault. Atheists, I agree, tend to not be dogmatic. Rather they contend there is no evidence of a God (at least as defined by the dogmatic theist).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #0]

This is an odd debate topic in that a definition of a "dogmatic atheist" has been given; one who denies there is a divine being. The definition of a 'skeptical atheist' is even more problematic. The skeptic simply doubts there is a god; he is 'skeptical' of God's existence.

I'd say the definition offered for a 'critical atheist' is closest to what most atheists claim is their position.

But what is the point of asking if there are those who "flatly deny there is a divine being?

Because that is what atheist means an anti theist, or no theist, no God. I find it fascinating that there are very few if any atheists that will "flatly deny there is a divine being when that is what atheist means.

You say you like the critical atheist but that is not an atheist that is the definition of an agnostic, someone that believes there is not enough information to know whether there is a god or not.

I flatly deny there is a divine being but reject the label "dogmatic atheist."

Why? Because you know that atheism has lost all of its scientific underpinnings.
3 of the major cosmological theories describe the beginning of the universe and describe an esoteric universe in which nothing exists.
1. Alien program
2. Black hole
3. Boltzmann Brain

The other one describes a universe in which there are an infinite number of universes.
Multiverse

Notice nothing describes the universe that we observe. One universe

Christian theologians like Paul Tillich also deny God is a being. They assert God is much more than a mere 'being.' In fact, thinking of God as a being is a primitive concept that better fits gods like Zeus and Odin rather than a sophisticated "God" who does not merely exist, but is beyond existence; not a being, but 'the very ground of being,' to use Tillich's terminology.

Tillich says that God is more than just a being. He does not deny the existence of God. He does not deny the personhood of God. So I am not sure what you are saying.

The other thing that strikes me is 'Why are so many theists (apparently) obsessed with the definition of "atheist?"'

I am not sure why you think this. But there is no such thing as an atheist, it appears because no one really wants to try to defend their belief that there is no God. Especially, how a universe without a god explains what we observe in this universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #32]

Because it wasn't intended to be one. How about answering the question now?

That is outside of the OP. The OP is about defending atheism not a defense of theism. Can anyone make a convincing defense for atheism?
Can anyone defend the belief that there is no god?

Those who claim a god or gods exist can't show they speak truth. Atheism 101.

[Clownboat]

It is irrational to say that there is no God.

This would be true only if it was known that there are in fact gods. How many gods are there and how did you come to this conclusion?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #0]

But atheism never had any scientific underpinnings to lose. Do you not know what atheism is? .. FYI, It's either a denial of the existence of god because of a lack of convincing evidence, OR it's a lack of belief in the existence of god because of a lack of convincing evidence. Most atheists are of the latter variety.

So you are not an atheist at all. You are an agnostic why do not just say you are an agnostic?

Your definition above describes atheism as a "psychological belief, it cannot be defined as a proposition at all even if thesim is a proposition" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

"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." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Anthony Kenny agnostic:

written by the agnostic, Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85):

I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Atheism philosophically is the belief that there is no god.

This definition is also found in multiple encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy. For example, in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William L. Rowe (also an atheist) writes, “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief” (2000: 62). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy recognizes multiple senses of the word “atheism”, but is clear about which is standard in philosophy:

[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in god and is consistent with agnosticism [in the psychological sense]. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

So there is no way for anyone to say that there is no God. If you define atheism as a lack of belief in god.

Sure there is. It's for the same reason most theists say there are no woodland faeries, flying unicorns, or ogres.

No it is not the same reason. Theists say dogmatically that yes there is a God. Theists say dogmatically that there is no such thing as woodland faeries, unicorns and the like. That is not what you are saying with your definition you are not saying that they do not exist you are saying that there is simply just not enough evidence for you to believe that they do not exist. So for you, there is a possibility that woodland faeries, unicorns, and ogres do exist according to your definition of atheism.