Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

It wasn't just Stalin. The ideologogy of the Soviet Union was the elimination of religion and its replacement by atheism. I am using it as an example where atheism can lead to intolerance just as religion can.

Well it's an awful example. Because you can't introduce atheism into a state.
It doesn't make any sense.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

It wasn't just Stalin. The ideologogy of the Soviet Union was the elimination of religion and its replacement by atheism. I am using it as an example where atheism can lead to intolerance just as religion can.

Stalins ideology was the elimination of any rival, be it an individual, a country, or a church. Not a great analogy, perhaps.

Tim Robbins

pauldla wrote: »

Stalins ideology was the elimination of any rival, be it an individual, a country, or a church. Not a great analogy, perhaps.

It is the equivalent of saying Lions are atheist and they eat humans alive.
It is nothing to do with a Lion's atheism that encourages him to eat humans.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But Stalin also had a moustache - so was he a dogmatic moustachist?

You misunderstand the word atheism.
All it means is disbelief. *Nothing* else. So - a priori - it can't have causal relationships with either acts of generosity or that of a psychopath.

I understand atheism very well. A dogmatic atheist is someone who is certain in their belief that God does not exist. For that statement to be true there has to be compelling evidence and there is none. When you state something with certainty the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. Atheists use science to back up their argument and state that science explains the universe and there is no need for a creator. Science does no such thing and any scientist being honest would agree. We need to know a hell of a lot more about the universe and how it came into being before we can state with certainty that God does not exist. A good start would be to uncover where the laws of nature came from that clearly were present at the instant of the big bang.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it's an awful example. Because you can't introduce atheism into a state.
It doesn't make any sense.

Of course you can, religion was removed from the curriculum in schools and atheism taught in its place. How is the state mandating atheism being taught not as dogmatic as mandating religion being taught?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Stalins ideology was the elimination of any rival, be it an individual, a country, or a church. Not a great analogy, perhaps.

The replacement of religion by atheism in the Soviet Union happened before Stalin came to power. Dogmatic atheism was part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand atheism very well. A dogmatic atheist is someone who is certain in their belief that God does not exist. For that statement to be true there has to be compelling evidence and there is none. When you state something with certainty the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. Atheists use science to back up their argument and state that science explains the universe and there is no need for a creator. Science does no such thing and any scientist being honest would agree. We need to know a hell of a lot more about the universe and how it came into being before we can state with certainty that God does not exist. A good start would be to uncover where the laws of nature came from that clearly were present at the instant of the big bang.

You'll find very few (if any at all) atheists on this site who are certain in their beliefs. Certainty implies knowledge, and atheism isn't a statement of knowledge, it's a statement of belief; knowledge and belief are not equal nor synonymous. Most atheists would classify themselves as agnostic atheists: agnostic (a statement of knowledge) and atheist (a statement of belief); an agnostic atheist is one who doesn't know whether god exists or not, but doesn't believe in him either way. In the same fashion, most theists would be agnostic too, considering they don't know whether god exists or not. In that regard, your above argument for there existing "dogmatic atheists" is untrue.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

The replacement of religion by atheism in the Soviet Union happened before Stalin came to power. Dogmatic atheism was part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

But you did mention Stalin, presumably as the epitome of that policy. I'm not denying the atheism present in communism, just questioning the extent the actions of the Russian Communist Party were motivated by ideology or by realpolitik.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is the equivalent of saying Lions are atheist and they eat humans alive.
It is nothing to do with a Lion's atheism that encourages him to eat humans.

Speaking of silly examples..
My point is simple. People who have certainty in their beliefs without evidence and proof are dogmatic and frequently intolerant. This is equally true of religious and atheists. Once you have certainty that you are right and others are wrong it is easy go go down the road of intolerance and when intolerant people get into power bad things generally happen. The Christian churches have had no problem persecuting unbelievers as they regard them as wrong and lesser humans, the same is true of dogmatic atheists such as the communist Soviet Union.

nagirrac

gvn wrote: »

You'll find very few (if any at all) atheists on this site who are certain in their beliefs. Certainty implies knowledge, and atheism isn't a statement of knowledge, it's a statement of belief; knowledge and belief are not equal nor synonymous. Most atheists would classify themselves as agnostic atheists: agnostic (a statement of knowledge) and atheist (a statement of belief); an agnostic atheist is one who doesn't know whether god exists or not, but doesn't believe in him either way. In the same fashion, most theists would be agnostic too, considering they don't know whether god exists or not. In that regard, your above argument for there existing "dogmatic atheists" is untrue.

So there's nobody on this site who agrees with Dawkins? I agree most atheists are agnostics (as I am, just more of a theist agnostic) and that most people are moderate and reasonable in their views, but I also think there are plenty dogmatic atheists around. Anyone claiming that science supports their belief that God does not exist is a dogmatic atheist in my opinion and needs to be more open minded.

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand atheism very well. A dogmatic atheist is someone who is certain in their belief that God does not exist. For that statement to be true there has to be compelling evidence and there is none. When you state something with certainty the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. Atheists use science to back up their argument and state that science explains the universe and there is no need for a creator. Science does no such thing and any scientist being honest would agree. We need to know a hell of a lot more about the universe and how it came into being before we can state with certainty that God does not exist. A good start would be to uncover where the laws of nature came from that clearly were present at the instant of the big bang.

No you don't. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the various Gods put forward by the various religions.

There is a difference between saying:

1. I believe there are no Gods
2. I disbelieve the various Gods put forward by Religions.
3. I know there are no Gods.

Some atheists haven't a clue about science especially anyone who says Science says there is no need for a creator. Your generalisations are pretty friggin lazy and ignorant.

religion was removed from the curriculum in schools and atheism taught in its place. How is the state mandating atheism being taught not as dogmatic as mandating religion being taught?

This still doesn't make much sense.

Atheism is not a position of certainty so how can be taught as if it is?

If a school teaches kids not to believe things that have proof or very good evidence - is that dogmatic? No.

You see Christianity has Gospels which tell the followers to tell everyone its true. But's there is no equivalent to atheism. So when you compare it to a religion which operates on a stronger level of certainty than a position of disbelief you get into all sorts of flaky comparison.

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

Speaking of silly examples..
My point is simple. People who have certainty in their beliefs without evidence and proof are dogmatic and frequently intolerant. This is equally true of religious and atheists. Once you have certainty that you are right and others are wrong it is easy go go down the road of intolerance and when intolerant people get into power bad things generally happen. The Christian churches have had no problem persecuting unbelievers as they regard them as wrong and lesser humans, the same is true of dogmatic atheists such as the communist Soviet Union.

Why do you keep thinking atheism is a belief?

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

Anyone claiming that science supports their belief that God does not exist is a dogmatic atheist in my opinion and needs to be more open minded.

Who is making that claim?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

So there's nobody on this site who agrees with Dawkins?

Can you give me one quote where Richard Dawkins claims to know whether god exists or not?

I agree most atheists are agnostics (as I am, just more of a theist agnostic) and that most people are moderate and reasonable in their views, but I also think there are plenty dogmatic atheists around.

I know a lot of atheists, plenty of whom frequent the A+A forum, yet I can't recall one who has claimed to have knowledge regarding god's existence.

Anyone claiming that science supports their belief that God does not exist is a dogmatic atheist in my opinion and needs to be more open minded.

Why? Science doesn't support the idea of a god existing, so in that respect it is complimentary to the atheistic viewpoint. Not too many claim what you're claiming they do, though.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Who is making that claim?

The first 4 chapters of The God Delusion make such a strong claim i.e. that natural selection is more believable than the universe being designed therefore God does not exist with almost full certainty. While I accept natural selection in terms of biological evolution it does nothing to explain how the universe came into being. Dawkins' statement that believing in a "designer" is irrational as it poses the question "who designed the designer" merely states his ignorance of broader science than just biology (if he were more familiar with quantum physics/relativity he would understand the nature of time as a dimension in our universe better). The problem with evolutionary biologists is they can only think in linear terms. Even their own subject matter does not work in linear terms, there are plenty examples in evolution where nothing happened for literally billions of years and then there is a huge explosion of development.

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

The first 4 chapters of The God Delusion make such a strong claim i.e. that natural selection is more believable than the universe being designed therefore God does not exist with almost full certainty.

No-where does Dawkins make the claim that science proves God does not exist and many God believers accept natural selection.

While I accept natural selection in terms of biological evolution it does nothing to explain how the universe came into being. Dawkins' statement that believing in a "designer" is irrational as it poses the question "who designed the designer" merely states his ignorance of broader science than just biology (if he were more familiar with quantum physics/relativity he would understand the nature of time as a dimension in our universe better).

Who designed the designer is not a scientific argument it is a philosophical one so it infers nothing about his ignorance or knowledge of other sciences.

The problem with evolutionary biologists is they can only think in linear terms. Even their own subject matter does not work in linear terms, there are plenty examples in evolution where nothing happened for literally billions of years and then there is a huge explosion of development.

Evolution is not linear sequence - it is more like a exponential one.
Evolution is a slow gradual process. Creationism is the process for a huge explosion of species.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No you don't. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the various Gods put forward by the various religions.

There is a difference between saying:

1. I believe there are no Gods
2. I disbelieve the various Gods put forward by Religions.
3. I know there are no Gods.

Some atheists haven't a clue about science especially anyone who says Science says there is no need for a creator. Your generalisations are pretty friggin lazy and ignorant.


This still doesn't make much sense.

Atheism is not a position of certainty so how can be taught as if it is?

If a school teaches kids not to believe things that have proof or very good evidence - is that dogmatic? No.

You see Christianity has Gospels which tell the followers to tell everyone its true. But's there is no equivalent to atheism. So when you compare it to a religion which operates on a stronger level of certainty than a position of disbelief you get into all sorts of flaky comparison.

What is lazy and ignorant is implying that all atheists are the same. Yes, atheism in the broad sense is a rejection in the belief in deities but there are strong atheists such as Dawkins who make a very strong case that God does not exist and weak atheists (agnostics) who simply hold that they do not know or cannot know whether there is a God. Most agnostics that I know would not regard themselves as strong atheists or atheists at all.

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No-where does Dawkins make the claim that science proves God does not exist and many God believers accept natural selection.

I accept natutral selection but it does nothing to convince me in any way how the universe came into being or whether it was designed or not. Dawkins ends his chapter 4 with the conclusion that "God almost certainly does not exist" without any serious attempt to examine how the universe came into being. There are many quantum physicists who have given this subject serious consideration and come up with no such strong conclusion as Dawkins.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand atheism very well. A dogmatic atheist is someone who is certain in their belief that God does not exist. For that statement to be true there has to be compelling evidence and there is none. When you state something with certainty the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. Atheists use science to back up their argument and state that science explains the universe and there is no need for a creator. Science does no such thing and any scientist being honest would agree. We need to know a hell of a lot more about the universe and how it came into being before we can state with certainty that God does not exist. A good start would be to uncover where the laws of nature came from that clearly were present at the instant of the big bang.

Atheists reject the claim of theism. Most theists also reject the vast majority of theistic claims (eg. Christians don't believe Zeus is real), atheists just reject all of them that they have heard where as theists accept some but reject most. This is highlighted by the excellent exchange Dawkins once had with a Christian and a Muslim where Dawkins said to the Christian you reject the claims of Islam, and to the Muslim you reject the claims of Christianity, Dawkins simply said "I agree with both of you"

You cannot demonstrate a god does not exist since theists have defined most gods as untestable. Likewise you cannot demonstrate than an invisible pink unicorn that constantly changes into invisible bread doesn't exist in my bathroom. Needless to say you don't require much justification in order not to believe that such a thing exists any more than one requires much justification not to believe that gods exist.

A common though not universal atheist position is that humans made up religion and the supernatural claims of religion such as the existence of gods. Just as I made up the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom. There is a ton of evidence to support the position that religion is made up, but you will never been able to prove that humans make up religion. But then you will equally never be able to prove that my invisible pink unicorn is made up either. It is still the most rational position to hold, by far.

Now if you excuse me I have to feed my invisible pink unicorn. He eats invisible oats made from the souls of dead tigers.

Fanny Cradock

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that any of this extensive literature will help in any way.

Perhaps not. But you asked a question about how we could possibly know God and I would suggest that like any relationship it requires a little work on our part.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd expect that literature can't really fill the gap in comprehension. All it can boil down to is "We can't really comprehend what a creator god would be like, or what essential components - if any - make him what he is. If we don't know what he's like, we can't possibly draw connections between him and any event or person or whatnot that we, for whatever reason, might want to ascribe to him."

The claim of Christianity is that we can know something about God because he has revealed himself to us. Both Christians and Jews believe in a personal God, one who was and is deeply involved with creation.

pauldla wrote: »

Forgive me for reducing the argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument from First Cause runs “Everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause, and as there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe must be the First Cause, i.e. God”.

You’ve probably heard it already. I don’t understand why god is defined as uncaused; it seems suspiciously convenient, and in any case appears to buck the argument. If everything that exists needs a prior cause, why does god get an exemption? Why do we need god in there at all? It looks to me be like an argument by someone attempting to shoehorn God into the cosmos. I was so disappointed the first time I read Aquinas; I remember thinking “That’s it? That’s his proof?” Of course, there is every chance that I have indeed misunderstood the argument; in which case, could you please show me my errors?

I think you might enjoy this post from Edward Feser who I mentioned earlier.

pauldla wrote: »

When you get down to the specifics of godhood, and especially the specifics of the Christian God, all sorts of creaks and groans can be heard from the logic. For example, to refer back to a point I mentioned previously, do you see any difficulty in claiming that God is omniscient and omnipotent? Do you find these ideas to be logically consistent with each other?

No, I don't see the logical inconsistency. They actually seem like the type of characteristics that might be complementary. Likewise the something less than these characteristics (i.e. not all powerful and not all knowledgeable) would also be complementary - or at least not at odds. Could you explain why you think that these characteristics are logically inconsistent. I'm still not understanding why you think that the Christian God is fundamentally illogical. This is largely because I don't think you have given me much to go on.

pauldla wrote: »

As stated above, I’m happy to suspend judgment on the matter of the existence of the Universe. Like I said, it's OK to wait until the proofs are in. You won't burn if hell for reserving judgment on such an issue.

And that is all good and fine. But it still doesn't answer why you think that the notion of a creator God is illogical but are content to wait and see when it comes to the origins of the universe.

I'm not expecting you to know how the deepest mysteries of the universe. I just want to understand why you seemingly have no problems when it comes to the other options I presented. It seems to me that something must have eternally existed, and that is why I can't understand why God is illogical in your eyes.

pauldla wrote: »

If it's well grounded in logic or reality, it's hardly supernatural, wouldn't you think?

What makes you think that logic and reality (whose reality, exactly?) is a function of a purely natural existence?

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry J.C just saw your reply now- the existence of god is the title of the thread , so unless some of us don't believe that Gods exist there would'nt be much point to the thread .

And I agree that examining the existence of all gods individually may be a diversion, that is not really the point I am pursuing , but rather why you or phil choose one God rather than another , or one version of Christianity rather than another.

And that is a valid argument to consider as each version believes it speaks the truth.

Yes indeed many churches do sweat the small stuff ... and if you want to discuss their differences, I would suggest that you set up Christian theology thread ... or take part in the OSAS thread, for example.:)

J C

lmaopml wrote: »

When one sees a correlation in a crap survey, does that mean it's the 'cause'? Does it mean it's 'true'.

That reminds me of my old maths professor who warned us to always establish an actual link between factors that are mathematically correlated ... and he went on to illustrate this by telling us that the number of divorces in Britain between 1900 and 1960 had a correlation coefficient of 0.9 with the tonnage of bananas imported over the period!!!:):D

If there is no actual link ... it's a coincidence ... and not a correlation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps not. But you asked a question about how we could possibly know God and I would suggest that like any relationship it requires a little work on our part.

I'm leaping to a conclusion - that I'll admit. But I simply can't imagine that any amount of work can resolve this contradiction. If there's this concept of God as a whatever that transcends our ability to comprehend things, as he's outside of space and time and any yoke that we might be able to perceive, then it's not very clear how people can have a relationship with this whatever.

I don't know, but is that the start of those debates among early Christians about the nature of Jesus? Presumably, (just for a moment accepting accounts of the career of Jesus for purposes of the discussion) some would reasonably say that whatever they were relating to might be something revealed by God that is comprehensible to humans. But if the real nature of God is beyond our capacity to understand, whatever it is that we'd assert we know and relate to in Jesus couldn't be the real nature of God - pretty much by definition.

I feel a little like Oolon Colluphid must have felt in "the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", when his argument in Well That About Wraps It Up for God made the Supreme Creator vanish in a puff of logic. In all seriousness, I'm not at all contesting that people can simply feel that a particular religion establishes a reliable framework. I just wonder if too much time is spent trying to create an "understanding" of things that simply cannot be understood. I mean, I take it Jesus never made any comment on the composition of God, and whether that composition was more or less complex than the Universe, or whether it transcended it.

Tim Robbins

nagirrac wrote: »

What is lazy and ignorant is implying that all atheists are the same.

Because it is ignorant nonsense.

Yes, atheism in the broad sense is a rejection in the belief in deities but there are strong atheists such as Dawkins who make a very strong case that God does not exist

Well maybe you should read the god delusion properly. He sets out a 7 point scale in the book and classifies himself as a 6.

I accept natutral selection but it does nothing to convince me in any way how the universe came into being or whether it was designed or not. Dawkins ends his chapter 4 with the conclusion that "God almost certainly does not exist" without any serious attempt to examine how the universe came into being.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the universe or its origins.
The point of natural selection is that once you have replicating DNA, mutations and selection, it means that complexity can come from simplicity. There is no need for any external hand. Previously the most intelligent people in society used to think complexity implies an external hand. But, when science shows that complexity can come from simplicity it rocks that view. It doesn't disprove God but too a lot of people just makes it even more unlikely.

There are many quantum physicists who have given this subject serious consideration and come up with no such strong conclusion as Dawkins.

No there are not. The majority of theoritical physicists are atheists. Steven Weinberg for example.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But that isn't dogma, not by any definition of the word.
It's not a required, fundamental and unchangeable doctrine intrinsic to atheism or to atheists.
It's simply an analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your claim about atheist dogma is.

The analogy shows very clearly how atheists form a worldview concerning believers from what is a simple claim. The fact of the matter is that being an atheist affects your view on many other things whether you like it or not. In much the same way, the death and resurrection of Jesus for a Christian is the basis for an entire worldview.

King Mob wrote: »

A non belief in fairies is not a dogma. And for the exact same reasons neither is atheism.
And you know this I think, but feel that pretending that Atheism is dogmatic makes it easier to argue against.

Atheism is dogmatic concerning many things. It forms a worldview. It is a simple idea, yet it influences thought in a human being. There are logical conclusions from atheism concerning morality, concerning how to approach other religions and many other things.

For example look at the philosophy that Richard Dawkins has taken in respect to other religions. It's very similar to the philosophy that you've adopted, except you don't go quite as far as him. Stopping at likening belief in a creator God to fairies:

I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven't really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.

King Mob wrote: »

Then please do. Saying you can show something doesn't mean you can.

Philosophies are constructed on top of atheism. Atheism isn't just a single idea - it affects other areas of thought. Other areas of thought are built on atheism - existentialism, moral nihilism / subjectivism, scientism and so on.

King Mob wrote: »

Except that the vast majority of the response to that was along the lines of "atheism is only a lack of belief in God, it doesn't imply any other beliefs."
The exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Further if you just have a look on the atheism board you can see large amounts of the atheists there disagreeing with things and ideas from New atheists.
If there was an atheist dogma, why is that happening?
So again, you either fundamentally don't understand that issue or are misrepresenting it to pretend it backs up your claim.

Other beliefs follow as the logical conclusion of atheism. Ideas affect an entire philosophy.

King Mob wrote: »

So no one has ever explained the burden of proof to you?

My point was that you couldn't use your usual tack of the notion of God being so special that he had to be assumed to exist, which makes him different to other fictional entities.
I am assuming he is fictional because that is the default logical position in the absence of good solid evidence or good reasoning. I have yet to see either.
And this is the same position I have for fairies, unicorns or any other fantastical or fictional creature which does have evidence to show that it exists.

And it is your position for those creatures as well you just pretend that God is special.

I grow more and more sceptical of it by the day. If you claim that God doesn't exist, that's more than mere "agnostic atheism" and I'm going to ask you how you come to that conclusion. If you don't have an answer as to how you can come to that conclusion I'll just regard your claim as posturing. I'll call "God doesn't exist" claims all the time, and I will ask you why you hold to that view.

By the by, I disagree with you that there isn't "good solid evidence" for Jesus Christ and the gospel, and I'm more than happy to discuss it with you.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

What actually annoys me is the hypocrisy of accepting some naturalistic conclusions while rejecting ones that conflict with a religion, even though the conclusions are supported by the same reasoning and methods.

It's not hypocracy ... just a bunch of religious believers in the non-existence of God trying desperately to intellectually bolster their belief, by wishful thinking that the origins of the Universe and life can be explained by the blind forces of nature!!!:):D

This leads to completely illogical conclusions ... like the Universe Created itself ... by nothing blowing up to produce everything.

... and the CFSI in life was produced by a series of selected mistakes!!!

I feel your pain !!!:D

Fanny Cradock

philologos wrote: »

Atheism is dogmatic concerning many things. It forms a worldview. It is a simple idea, yet it influences thought in a human being. There are logical conclusions from atheism concerning morality, concerning how to approach other religions and many other things.

I'd agree with that up until you talk about approaches to religions. Logically followed atheism makes certain claims on the reality of existence. By in large I think that these claims are bleak, but that doesn't make atheism wrong. And I suppose people might find freedom in having no ultimate purpose, no God making moral demands and then nothing at the end of it all.

However, this aside, I don't think that atheism says much about how you should approach other religions. When people like Dawkins encourage behaviour like this (it's only 45 seconds long) that is down to his own brand of anti-theism and not his atheism per se.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'd agree with that up until you talk about approaches to religions. Logically followed atheism makes certain claims on the reality of existence. By in large I think that these claims are bleak, but that doesn't make atheism wrong. And I suppose people might find freedom in having no ultimate purpose, no God making moral demands and then nothing at the end of it all.

I sometimes wonder if there are any/many 'true' Atheists ... in my experience the dogmatic ones are more correctly classified as anti-theists ... and the non-dogmatic ones are actually agnostics!!!:)

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

The analogy shows very clearly how atheists form a worldview concerning believers from what is a simple claim. The fact of the matter is that being an atheist affects your view on many other things whether you like it or not. In much the same way, the death and resurrection of Jesus for a Christian is the basis for an entire worldview.

But atheists can and do have radically different worldviews.
How is this possible? How can they all be atheists when they aren't adhering to the "dogma"?

philologos wrote: »

Atheism is dogmatic concerning many things. It forms a worldview. It is a simple idea, yet it influences thought in a human being. There are logical conclusions from atheism concerning morality, concerning how to approach other religions and many other things.

Please list the things that atheism by itself is dogmatic about.
List the things in implies other than a lack of a belief in god.

philologos wrote: »

For example look at the philosophy that Richard Dawkins has taken in respect to other religions. It's very similar to the philosophy that you've adopted, except you don't go quite as far as him. Stopping at likening belief in a creator God to fairies:

How is that dogma?
How can I be an atheist when I am not in agreement with Dawkins?

philologos wrote: »

Philosophies are constructed on top of atheism. Atheism isn't just a single idea - it affects other areas of thought. Other areas of thought are built on atheism - existentialism, moral nihilism / subjectivism, scientism and so on.

And atheism does not automatically imply that someone holds to any of those, nor do any of those require you to be atheist.
If you want to argue that some of those are dogmatic, then that is a different argument than whether or not atheism is dogmatic.
If you have to bring in these other areas to show that it is, you are admiting that atheism is not dogmatic.

philologos wrote: »

Other beliefs follow as the logical conclusion of atheism. Ideas affect an entire philosophy.

That's great but that doesn't mean that atheism is dogmatic.
It is the definition one position on one topic. If you lack a belief in god you are an atheist. If you have a belief in a god you are not an atheist.
That's it.
Please outline where the dogma is in that.

philologos wrote: »

I grow more and more sceptical of it by the day. If you claim that God doesn't exist, that's more than mere "agnostic atheism" and I'm going to ask you how you come to that conclusion. If you don't have an answer as to how you can come to that conclusion I'll just regard your claim as posturing. I'll call "God doesn't exist" claims all the time, and I will ask you why you hold to that view.

First, I don't and didn't claim that god doesn't exist. I belief that there is no good evidence or reason to believe that he does, and that until such evidence is provided or found I will assume the default logic position: that he's indistinguishable from non-existent entities.

Second, if you think your logic here is sound, then please demonstrate it. Provide what you are asking to show it can be done: prove to us that fairies (or some other ficitional or imagine creature you'd like) does not exist.

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I disagree with you that there isn't "good solid evidence" for Jesus Christ and the gospel, and I'm more than happy to discuss it with you.

Except I didn't say anything about Jesus or the gospels. I was referring to god.
If you have evidence to show that he exists that stands up to scrutiny, then by all means...
However experience with your posting style tells me that you will provide some poor argument, then vanish when your points are countered. So I'm not going to hold my breath.

J C

J C wrote: »

I sometimes wonder if there are any/many 'true' Atheists ... in my experience the dogmatic ones are more correctly classified as anti-theists ... and the non-dogmatic ones are actually agnostics!!!

If we're both intellectually honest, then I'm as agnostic in my belief that there is no god as you are agnostic in your belief that there is one. Despite this, I'm still an atheist and you're still a theist. Why? Because atheism (or, indeed, theism) and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, nor are they even concerned with the same issue -- one addresses knowledge, the other belief.