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?

[JoeyKnothead]

....
Because only God could die for the forgiveness of sins.
...

You can't even show a god exists to have an opinion on 'sins', let alone a willingness to die in order to forgive em.

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

Being dogmatic has a thinking and attitude component. It tends to involve people expressing unproven views and in an unquestioning way. A lot of the dogmatism in atheism comes from there being a sort of orthodoxy of views. And it's not just limited to the issue of God's existence (although it's related) but you also find it extending into morality, metaphysics, views on religion, etc. The clearest example can be seen when you venture into forums for atheists. That's where you'll most likely find an "orthodoxy" with views that can't be questioned and/or views that are dismissed a priori. Some have tried to challenge me on there being an atheist "orthodox" but I don't know what to call it when I've experienced many atheists sharing similar views and thinking. They may not be as organized as religion, but there are some that do organize and share common views.

Watch scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson explain this topic starting at 2:10 minute mark. He brings up the "in-your-face badge wearing atheist".


Clarifications:
- It's also fair to say that there are plenty of atheists that aren't dogmatic, but they seems to be in the minority.
- It's not wrong to associate or form groups, but doing so makes it easier for "orthodox" views to form and for people to become dogmatic and reject anything that's not part of the orthodoxy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #51]

You can't even show a god exists to have an opinion on 'sins', let alone a willingness to die in order to forgive em.

Did Jesus exist?

Did the disciples believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #52]

Being dogmatic has a thinking and attitude component. It tends to involve people expressing unproven views and in an unquestioning way. A lot of the dogmatism in atheism comes from there being a sort of orthodoxy of views. And it's not just limited to the issue of God's existence (although it's related) but you also find it extending into morality, metaphysics, views on religion, etc. The clearest example can be seen when you venture into forums for atheists. That's where you'll most likely find an "orthodoxy" with views that can't be questioned and/or views that are dismissed a priori. Some have tried to challenge me on there being an atheist "orthodox" but I don't know what to call it when I've experienced many atheists sharing similar views and thinking. They may not be as organized as religion, but there are some that do organize and share common views.

Watch scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson explain this topic starting at 2:10 minute mark. He brings up the "in-your-face badge-wearing atheist".

So what proposition are you making?

According to Standford's philosophy department, you are not saying anything. (already cited in this string) You are really doing nothing more than giving us nothing more than a psychological belief statement. It would actually be less than a belief because a belief could make a proposition based on that belief.

These psychological belief statements are really just an admission of the reality that any type of atheistic belief is not based on any type of scientific research.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #51]

You can't even show a god exists to have an opinion on 'sins', let alone a willingness to die in order to forgive em.

Did Jesus exist?

I'm unaware of any half human, half god ever existing.

Did the disciples believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

So goes the claim. Unfortunately these disciples are unavailable for us to cross examine their alleged testimonies.

I think the more important question here is do you believe half human, half gods are possible, and do they have the capability of returning back to life after they die?

[Clownboat]

Did Jesus exist?

It seems reasonable, but we know little about the man if we are being honest.
We have no reason to believe that any demigods ever existed though to clarify.

Did the disciples believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

No. They knew that they took the corpse to Galilee to be buried.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #56]

It seems reasonable, but we know little about the man if we are being honest.

We know more about Jesus than Julius Ceasar or Tiberius Ceasar, or Plato. We actually know quite a bit about Jesus.

We have no reason to believe that any demigods ever existed though to clarify.

You are correct. Jesus was not a demigod. He was God incarnate.

Did the disciples believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
No. They knew that they took the corpse to Galilee to be buried.

You made this up all by yourself, didn't you? Because scholars say that Jesus was buried in Jerusalem. And the Church started in Jerusalem, Jesus died in Jerusalem and the disciples preached the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.

If you want to imagine things and then believe them that is up to you.

[Clownboat]

We actually know quite a bit about Jesus.

We know enough for it to be reasonably assumed that the stories told were based off of a real character or characters. We really don't know what you think we do about Jesus. Heck, we don't even know who wrote the gospels, nor how much after Jesus's death they were written. It is truly a shame that the Jesus character(s) didn't write anything down himself though.

We have no reason to believe that any demigods ever existed though to clarify.

Jesus was not a demigod.

dem·i·god
/ˈdemēˌɡäd/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.

At war with language once again I see! Jesus in fact is believed by Christians to be what you claim he wasn't. Dictionaries are wonderful things, but don't let facts or accuracy get in the way of your beliefs. For the record, I don't think a god had an offspring with the virgin Mary, therefore producing a demigod and share in your belief that no demigod has ever been shown to exist.

You made this up all by yourself, didn't you?

Nope, the disciples actually took the body to Galilee to be buried. You don't actually think the dead body reanimated to life do you? Liquified organs an all?

Because scholars say that Jesus was buried in Jerusalem. And the Church started in Jerusalem, Jesus died in Jerusalem and the disciples preached the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.

The body was only in Jerusalem long enough to be prepped for the journey to Galilee (myrrh and aloe). The rest of the above all happened after the death and burial of Jesus. Your claims are 'mostly' accurate.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #58]

We know enough for it to be reasonably assumed that the stories told were based off of a real character or characters. We really don't know what you think we do about Jesus. Heck, we don't even know who wrote the gospels, nor how much after Jesus's death they were written. It is truly a shame that the Jesus character(s) didn't write anything down himself though.

I think the symbology re the biblical Jesus once writing something in the dirt, signifies that what is written is at all as important as Christians [or Jews] make it out to be.

Religious folk: Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

Yep - the symbology is there...

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #58]

We know enough for it to be reasonably assumed that the stories told were based off of a real character or characters. We really don't know what you think we do about Jesus. Heck, we don't even know who wrote the gospels, nor how much after Jesus's death they were written. It is truly a shame that the Jesus character(s) didn't write anything down himself though.

Do you have any historians that agree with you? Or do you just make this stuff up?

Let me know when you have a historian that agrees with you on your opinions.