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?

[Clownboat]

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

Atheism has/had scientific underpinnings and how our universe came to be has been explained and it wasn't materialism? How can you be sure about your words?

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

Even if you personally heard someone say this, I believe you would ignore it and continue to make the claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Theists do love to force this or that view, stance or position on atheists so as to debunk them.I'm sure you are familiar with the canard and strawman.

Let's first straighten out a few logical flaws and slips on your part.

You are saying that Theists say dogmatically, there are no fairies. So how do they prove it? Well, after all the appeals to consensus thought, lack of probability and not a scrap of good evidence for them, theists would realise that they cannot be dogmatically 100% sure there are no fairies, but technically agnostic about them, but on the negative evidence, they are 95% sure there aren't any.

So on a basis of technical agnosticism they can be confident there are no fairies. I am sure a smart guy like you will see that the atheist position is exactly the same regarding the god - claim. Also as someone familiar with philosophy, that the burden of proof falls on the claimant. Atheists do not claim 'there are no gods (dogmatically), it is the believer who will claim there is a god, and dogmatically, too. But you can see why it is why they love to force the burden of proof on atheism by claiming they are dogmatic about non -belief.

Now many think the atheist view is flat denial of a god or gods. Normally that would do, but technically we are not as logically we can't be. Just as theists can't be dogmatic on on Fairies. Nor can they be on gods other than the ones they believe in. Also Ghosts, which are widely denied despite the anecdotal evidence for them, and it is certainly logically open to brickbats to be dogmatically dismissive about ghosts. But it is fine to say 'I don't believe in them for this or that reason'.

Thus it is a reasonable non -belief position on ghosts with an agnostic underpinning. Theists are actually the same regarding fairies and other gods. Atheism does just the same and is logically just as valid.

As to the scientific (some say materialist) underpinning, it is still valid. You and i know that science hasn't suddenly become invalid because we can't reconcile quantum entanglement with Relativity. Science and physics still work and are valid, and the woo- end of physics produce questions that await answers but do not remove the underpinning of science for us in our daily lives. Thus logically it follows, despite the questions that science has yet to answer, the science that atheism relies on for the conclusion that what is known does not need a god for an explanation, is still valid.

Now, I have a question for you.

You objections are very familiar. Indeed, they look like they came out of a book "Fifty reasons why atheism is wrong".Where did you get these (wrong) arguments of yours? Did you work them out yourself? Did you read a book or leaflets of Theist arguments? Did you hear them from the pulpit or on a theist TV talk? Where did you get these apologetics?

[Diogenes]

[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.
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.

This is a common, a very commonly expressed error by theists. An atheist merely denies or sees no evidence of a God or gods. That does not necessarily mean he dogmatically and absolutely rules out any possibility of a God. For example, I believe there is more possibility of a 'ground of being' type of God, than a god who is a being, like a Zeus or Odin or the typical (orthodox) view of the anthropomorphic Hebrew 'God,' or the absurd god incarnate of Christianity. Others may express their disbelief in this 'being' kind of a God that Tillich describes, but I put it in the same realm of possibility as fairies, goblins, and other obviously mythic creatures.

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 reject 'agnostic' as a some what cowardly term for those who claim believe the popular God of theism to be unlikely to the tune of 99+%. I think 'agnostic' should be reserved for the person who simply says "I don't know," and is as open to the possibility of of a theistic god as they are to rejecting such a notion. I say to that kind of agnostic, "Put up or shut up. Either come out and declare this 'god' of the Bible does or does not exist OR say the existence of such a god is likely or highly unlikely. Saying "I'm agnostic" says almost nothing. "Maybe" is a better term for the true "I don't know agnostic." Everyone but a fool allows for some small doubt.*

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

All of the foregoing is little more than gibberish. Atheism does not claim to have "scientific underpinnings." It's just that atheists reject the silliness of a myth or 'faith' based epistemology. That leaves them with reality/science by default.

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.

You are misstating or misunderstanding what I wrote about Tillich. He is hard to understand. Tillich denies God is a mere being. Instead he says God is the "very ground of being." Exactly what that means is difficult to say, at least briefly. Tillich takes three books to try to tell us in his 3 volume Systematic Theology.
If you are saying Tillich denies God is a being, I agree. If you are saying God is a "being+" I disagree. Tillich attempts to find some kind of compromise or intermediate position between a personal god and one that merges with the universe. He fails, despite making a mighty and lengthy, complicated attempt. It seems to me that claiming God has "personhood" is to claim God is a being, and Tillich clearly rejects this.

___________________
* [Post Script] Re: atheist vs agnostic, both act like atheists. Agnostics, like atheists, act as if they do not believe in gods. So, as a practical matter there is no difference... except the 'agnostic' takes a 'wishy-washy' stand... or no stand at all. In effect the 'agnostic' says

"I don't believe in gods, but I don't want to come right out and say so. I'm just not sure. I... I... I just don't know. I know I don't believe, but... but... I don't want to offend anyone... I... I... just...."

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

Theists do love to force this or that view, stance or position on atheists so as to debunk them.I'm sure you are familiar with the canard and strawman.

I am not trying to debunk atheism at all. I was simply tired of atheists being deceptive about what they really believe. The etymology of the word itself means "the doctrine that there is no God;"
"from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts)." https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism

Saying that you lack belief in god means you are putting forth no proposition. Or another way to say this is that it means that you are saying nothing. It is some psychosis or belief you are having. If you lack belief in god you are simply saying that there is not enough evidence for you to make your decision. That would be an agnostic, not an atheist.

You are saying that Theists say dogmatically, there are no fairies. So how do they prove it? Well, after all the appeals to consensus thought, lack of probability and not a scrap of good evidence for them, theists would realise that they cannot be dogmatically 100% sure there are no fairies, but technically agnostic about them, but on the negative evidence, they are 95% sure there aren't any.

The theist can say with certainty that fairies do not exist because they were not created. Everything was created according to its kind. The kind that swims, the kind that swarms, the kinds that walk on land, the kind that flies. Man has an intellectual capacity that exceeds that of animals. Anything other than man that is on this Earth has the intelligence of an animal. So where would fairies fit into the taxonomy? It doesn't so we can dogmatically say that there is no such thing as fairies or anything else that does not fit into the created order.

To someone that believes in evolution, the existence of fairies is a possibility, along with Minotaurs and the rest of the creatures in mythology.

So no I do not believe in any of that stuff and I can say dogmatically that it does not exist because they do not fit in the created order.

As to the scientific (some say materialist) underpinning, it is still valid. You and i know that science hasn't suddenly become invalid because we can't reconcile quantum entanglement with Relativity. Science and physics still work and are valid, and the woo- end of physics produce questions that await answers but do not remove the underpinning of science for us in our daily lives. Thus logically it follows, despite the questions that science has yet to answer, the science that atheism relies on for the conclusion that what is known does not need a god for an explanation, is still valid.

Atheist love to say that they do not have a religion and yet they make statements like the one above which just shows how much of a religion it actually is. Religion can be defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” You are having an ardent faith that science will at one point in the future solve the problem of origins and many would go further than that even if science and rationalism do not solve the problem of origins then it does not matter. That is not rationalism that is religion. Atheism cannot rationally point to the solution of origins. The solution is part of an atheist belief system, it is part of their religion. In fact, an atheist belief system is less scientific than a theist belief system.

Where did you get these (wrong) arguments of yours?

You have yet to establish that they are wrong.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #43]

This is a common, a very commonly expressed error by theists. An atheist merely denies or sees no evidence of a God or gods. That does not necessarily mean he dogmatically and absolutely rules out any possibility of a God. For example, I believe there is more possibility of a 'ground of being' type of God, than a god who is a being, like a Zeus or Odin or the typical (orthodox) view of the anthropomorphic Hebrew 'God,' or the absurd god incarnate of Christianity. Others may express their disbelief in this 'being' kind of a God that Tillich describes, but I put it in the same realm of possibility as fairies, goblins, and other obviously mythic creatures.

No you are the one mistaken. By saying that you deny or see no evidence of a God or gods. Means two things. 1. that you are an agnostic, not an atheist. 2. You saying nothing. You are putting forward no proposition. You are simply stating your psychological belief. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

You are misstating or misunderstanding what I wrote about Tillich. He is hard to understand. Tillich denies God is a mere being. Instead he says God is the "very ground of being." Exactly what that means is difficult to say, at least briefly. Tillich takes three books to try to tell us in his 3 volume Systematic Theology.
If you are saying Tillich denies God is a being, I agree. If you are saying God is a "being+" I disagree. Tillich attempts to find some kind of compromise or intermediate position between a personal god and one that merges with the universe. He fails, despite making a mighty and lengthy, complicated attempt. It seems to me that claiming God has "personhood" is to claim God is a being, and Tillich clearly rejects this.

I was reading him wrong. I was not familiar with him. But he is not a Christian because he denies the deity of Christ. So he is not a Chrisitan theologian.

[Difflugia]

But he is not a Christian because he denies the deity of Christ. So he is not a Chrisitan theologian.

Tillich considered himself a Protestant Christian until his death.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]

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

Folk can be as dogmatic about beliefs as they can about non-beliefs.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #46]

Tillich considered himself a Protestant Christian until his death.

People think of themselves to be dogs and cats today. Still does not make them a dog or a cat.

Can't be a Christian and not believe Jesus is God. Because only God could die for the forgiveness of sins. I don't care what he said he was.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #47]

Folk can be as dogmatic about beliefs as they can about non-beliefs.

Am I supposed to understand what you are saying?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #47]

Folk can be as dogmatic about beliefs as they can about non-beliefs.

Am I supposed to understand what you are saying?

You said it yourself.

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