I accept your concession. It was more people arguing apples and oranges though. I was arguing purely philosophically, where it seems most people were arguing in the practical sense.
I accept your concession. It was more people arguing apples and oranges though. I was arguing purely philosophically, where it seems most people were arguing in the practical sense.
I don't think you understand philospohy.
Solipsism. Cogito Ergo Sum. The only thing you can know for certain is that you yourself exist. Everything else is philosophically possible.
That's it. That's all of the philosophy that is pertinent to this discussion. Anything beyond that enters the practical and physical realm where science takes over. Unless you are refuting solipsism, there is no relevant philosophy to discuss. Everything else is outside of the philosophical realm.
Well, actually, pragmatism is technically a philosophy. When you're arguing about what you think, you're arguing philosophy. And science is just a branch of heavily applied philosophy.
You are misusing the word Atheist, I suggest you look it up in a dictionary or even have google make the list by searching 'define: atheism'. The common definition is the rejection of claims of gods or the stating that god does not exist.
No, I'm really not misusing the word. You fail to understand its scope. If you don't specifically place faith in a given theistic system, you're an atheist. Do any religions actually recognize "agnosticism" as a valid position? No. You either believe in what they say, or you're an atheist.
And again, burden of proof applies to specific claims that aren't broad. I suppose that you can technically apply burden of proof to broader claims, but you'll wind up drawing a conclusion similar to the conclusion you would draw in a science experiment with a low confidence interval.
Let's dissect your claim that the atheist argument is "God doesn't exist." I'm going to assume that the "God" in that statement refers to the God described in the King James version of the Bible. We apply burden of proof and require me to demonstrate why that is. OK, fine. I have several pieces of evidence that directly contradict well-established facts in the same text that describes God; the Great Flood described in Genesis never occurred in the way described, the flight from Egypt described in Exodus never occurred, and there's no giant flaming sword guarding the gates to Eden any more (anyone remember that?). The Bible makes those many specific claims, none of which are substantiated by reality. Thus, those specific claims are false. You can continue going through the Bible and refuting these specific claims, until you are left with a thoroughly pigeonholed version of God, one that does not at all resemble the one in the Bible, nor the one to which we typically refer when saying "God."
In other words, your summary of the position of an atheist if flawed. It's better stated as "The God described in the Bible very probably does not exist in the manner described in that book." If you won't concede this point, this argument can't continue.
As I've stated repeatedly, burden of proof requires a specific claim in order to be effective. You don't disprove all ghosts when you debunk a haunting; you disprove that haunting. After collecting thousands of such specific debunkings, you begin to develop a theoretical model, one that will allow you to predict the outcome of a given haunting scenario. It might be something like, "I can say with 95% confidence that the causal agent of this haunting can be explained naturally." That's how burden of proof really works. It's often behind the scenes in day-to-day conversation, but if you approach things from the skeptical philosophy, that's how it works.
As I've stated repeatedly, burden of proof requires aspecificclaim in order to be effective. You don't disprove all ghosts when you debunk a haunting; you disprovethathaunting. After collecting thousands of such specific debunkings, you begin to develop a theoretical model, one that will allow you to predict the outcome of a given haunting scenario. It might be something like, "I can say with 95% confidence that the causal agent of this haunting can be explained naturally." That's how burden of proof really works. It's often behind the scenes in day-to-day conversation, but if you approach things from the skeptical philosophy, that's how it works.
I am 95% confident that when Pete presents an opinion on Science I will agree with it :-p
Magnum, I see you still have not rebuked the blatant internal contradictions. Why is that? I have to wonder, since they are straight-up contradictions, why would an all-powerful God not change his holy book so they would not contradict? I mean, seriously. You can say it is a matter of opinion, due to certain books supposedly being written by certain (different) people; but still, wouldn't God want his book to at least be non-self-contradicting?
Lets not commit ad hominems by implicating each other. The Christain explanation is that the bible is inspired by God and the people who wrote it down, being humans, messed it up. A similar thing with sin, they say God wants people not to sin but doesn't intervene when they do.
I have several pieces of evidence that directly contradict well-established facts in the same text that describes God; the Great Flood described in Genesis never occurred in the way described, the flight from Egypt described in Exodus never occurred, and there's no giant flaming sword guarding the gates to Eden any more (anyone remember that?). The Bible makes those many specific claims, none of which are substantiated by reality. Thus, those specific claims are false. You can continue going through the Bible and refuting these specific claims, until you are left with a thoroughly pigeonholed version of God, one that does not at all resemble the one in the Bible, nor the one to which we typically refer when saying "God."
As a side note, you know that the majority of believers interpret the bible figuratively, right?
Do any religions actually recognize "agnosticism" as a valid position? No. You either believe in what they say, or you're an atheist.
Why does that matter?
In other words, your summary of the position of an atheist if flawed. It's better stated as "The God described in the Bible very probably does not exist in the manner described in that book." If you won't concede this point, this argument can't continue.
So this is the definition of the word 'Atheist' and the how 'atheists' define themselves?
One last clarification, you say 'Atheism' is a general claim, so it is the default?
Lets not commit ad hominems by implicating each other.
He did not present an ad hominem argument; just one you do not like.
As a side note, you know that the majority of believers interpret the bible figuratively, right?
If you are interpreting the bible figuratively, then there is no point to the bible. Christian belief claims absolute truth. If you claim absolute truth but say you get to interpret it any way you wish, then it's not absolute truth.
One last clarification, you say 'Atheism' is a general claim, so it is the default?
There are no facts to support the existence of a god. If there were, it wouldn't be faith. So atheism -- the position of having no facts to support the existence of god -- is the default. If you want to say otherwise, then provide some proof (just be willing to destroy your faith in the process).
Let's say you are in court. You've been accused of committing murder. But you say you didn't do it; it was a masked man who did it. The police have all kinds of evidence that points to you committing the crime, but they didn't find any evidence of a masked man. Still, you believe he was the one who pulled the trigger. The default position is that there was no masked man until you submit proof he was there.
He did not present an ad hominem argument; just one you do not like.
Magnum, I see you still have not rebuked the blatant internal contradictions. Why is that?
Here he questions my integrity subtly, maybe not even intentionally, letting the readers draw what they may. The only reason I would dislike his statement would be because I think it is indignant or unintelligent. As I have said, I am an atheist, but I might be a bit more agnostic after this debate is finished. It will continue after TheWhaleShark responds.
Questioning your motivation is not the same as questioning your integrity. He is calling you out for sidestepping the issue. That's allowed in debate. It really, really is.
One last clarification, you say 'Atheism' is a general claim, so it is the default?
It requires an assertion to claim God exists, thus no assertion would be the default. It's like your politics: when you're born you're politically neutral, then move towards one of the many sides of the political spectrum as you grow older. When you're born you aren't religious, and then you move towards one of the many sides of the religious spectrum as you grow older.
EDIT: To clarify, saying you haven't rebuked a claim isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a statement of fact.
One last clarification, you say 'Atheism' is a general claim, so it is the default?
Perhaps this requires a bit of clarification. I am not saying that atheism is a general claim, because atheism is not a claim. What I am saying is that your definition of atheism-
Atheism is a very specific claim: God does not exist.
-is too general to be subject to burden of proof.
Your definition of atheism is flawed. Yes, saying "God does not exist" is an atheistic claim, but it's too narrow to be truly reflective of atheism in general.
Think of it like this: If I were to point at the Westboro Baptist Church and say "Religious people are crazy," I'm making a flawed argument. I'm using a narrow subset to stereotype a broad and diverse group. Likewise, saying that a group as broad as "atheist" (those who lack faith) all make the same specific statement is too narrow to truly be reflective of the group at large.
Again, when we're talking about burden of proof, everything has to be specific. Test enough specific claims and you can start putting them together into a framework.
Questioning your motivation is not the same as questioning your integrity. He is calling you out for sidestepping the issue. That's allowed in debate. It really, really is.
His comment questioned the integrity of my argument based on my motivation, which is partly my fault because I did not make evident in this thread, before he posted, that I am not catholic. So I give you the point that he was justified in his questioning of my motivation and was not committing an ad hominem.
Likewise, saying that a group as broad as "atheist" (those who lack faith) all make the same specific statement is too narrow to truly be reflective of the group at large.
Then they are not, in truth, atheists. They are the myriad of other, lesser known theologies. You are using the popularized, incorrect generalization of atheism.
I will be obtuse. People who call themselves atheists and adhere to the definition of atheism commit the same fallacy as theists. Atheism does not have the presumption of innocence.
Then they are not, in truth, atheists. They are the myriad of other, lesser known theologies. You are using the popularized, incorrect generalization of atheism.
I will be obtuse. People who call themselves atheists and adhere to the definition of atheism commit the same fallacy as theists. Atheism does not have the presumption of innocence.
By your logic, everybody is committing a fallacy in having some sort of opinion on the God matter. Being an atheist and being actively anti-God are two different things, and the fact that those who are anti-God are overwhelmingly also atheists does not define atheism as anti-God.
Theism and atheism are two sides of the same spectrum, and to say that atheism is somehow more narrow than theism is ridiculous. It's as if I said that Christians/Jews/Taoists/etc were not theists, they were just one of the myriad of other theologies because their claims were more specific than that of theism (a belief in God).
There is no physical evidence to prove whether or not the person was at the Starbucks or not. But that lack of evidence is itself evidence. If they were drinking coffee at the Starbucks, there would be a receipt. The lack of a receipt proves they did not buy a coffee there at that time.
No, lack of evidence would be the inability to take or find witness accounts, documents, or any physical proof that would support or deny any claim. What you have shown is evidence of lack.
1+1=2. Triangles have three sides.
There is some issue of with this in your evidence for the inability of 100% proof because they are both made up and defined. Their definition is dependent on thoughts.
No, I'm really not misusing the word. You fail to understand its scope. If you don'tspecificallyplace faith in a given theistic system, you're an atheist. Do any religions actually recognize "agnosticism" as a valid position? No. You either believe in what they say, or you're an atheist.
Yes they do see agnosticism as a position and I fail to see the importance of what they think regarding this issue.
By your logic, everybody is committing a fallacy in having some sort of opinion on the God matter. Being an atheist and being actively anti-God are two different things, and the fact that those who are anti-God are overwhelmingly also atheists does not define atheism as anti-God.
Theism and atheism are two sides of the same spectrum, and to say that atheism is somehow more narrow than theism is ridiculous.It's as if I said that Christians/Jews/Taoists/etc were not theists, they were just one of the myriad of other theologies because their claims were more specific than that of theism (a belief in God).
So then there are two atheisms: strong(belief there is no god) and weak(no belief in god). The former is as ordinary as theism [belief there is a god or gods (spiritual entity/ies)] and the latter is half of the agnostic statement. The statement: "I have no belief in God/s or belief in absences of God/s." Unless the 'weak atheist' has a different idea on the absence of god (if so then becomes a strong atheist) then the 'weak atheist' is an agnostic.
And again, burden of proof applies to specific claims that aren't broad
So then the general argument of atheism (there is an absence of the God/s) and equally general argument of theism (there is a presence of the God/s) are both equally possible. What you & another people here have been defining atheism as:
However, atheism doesn't really make a claimper se. Rather, it's a state indicating an absence of faith in any particular theistic system. There's no one belief system that describes "atheism."
Atheism is an absence of faith
So atheism -- the position of having no facts to support the existence of god -- is the default
These are agnosticism. The statement of lack of knowing.
So then the general argument of atheism (there is an absence of the God/s) and equally general argument of theism (there is a presence of the God/s) are both equally possible.
Yes. The existence of a particular god or the non-existence of that god are equiprobable. Ergo, why believe at all if it's just as likely to not be the case?
These are agnosticism. The statement of lack of knowing.
It's properly "agnostic athesim." They answer two different questions. A/gnosticism answers the question of whether or not it is possible to know if there exists a given entity or not. A/theism concerns itself with whether or not you believe in the existence of such an entity. They are different but related questions.
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any sort of higher power because it is impossible to know if it exists or not. There are gnostic theists (we can know and I do believe), gnostic atheists (we can know and I don't believe), and agnostic theists (we can't know but I believe anyhow).
We can't know and I don't believe. Agnostic atheism.
Well, sometimes we are. Feel free to call us on it. It usually makes for interesting and productive conversations, like this one. Sometimes there is assclownery interspersed, but that's natural when you get this many people who like to argue together in one place.
I don't mean this to act superior, its just that the forums at times seem to be conceited.
At times? I'm pretty sure conceit is one of our descriptors. Were this forum a character in Burning Wheel, it would have the trait "Conceited." Fuck, it'd probably be a die trait.
Religions are dogmatic. Atheism cannot possibly be dogmatic because it lacks a philosophy about which to be dogmatic.
It's sort of how there's technically no such thing as "cold." We describe the ambient conditions as "cold" when there is a large disparity in the amount of heat energy available. Same principle. You either have faith (and thus adhere to a particular dogma), or you don't. We just have a different word to describe the status of "not theistic."
I know what you're saying. But everyone is going to jump on you anyway for not wording this correctly. There is no "dogma" so atheists can not, by definition, be dogmatic. But I believe this is what you really mean.
The definition of atheism is trivial to derive linguistically. It uses the prefix a-/an-, which is derived from Greek and means
no, absence of, without, lack of, not
Consequently, atheism is simply the absence of theism. Taken literally, it means the same thing as nontheism - it's as simple as that. Sure, some might twist the language and take atheism to mean the belief that there are no theist deities, but that is identified with the term "strong atheism".
While we're on the topic, theism has a more specific meaning of belief in a god that can be related to as a person (a personal god), though it's easier, particularly for this discussion, to consider it as a general term meaning belief in the existence of at least one deity. In particular, considering a different definition of theism results in a different definition of atheism, so we definitely need to choose one.
So, now that that's sorted out, we can discuss the position of "strong atheism" - the explicit denial of the existence of deities.
Here's my thoughts on the matter: Even if we set solipsism aside and attempt to be practical, because of the definition of "supernatural" we cannot know for certain whether a given deity exists, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This, naturally, results in a position of agnosticism. Normally, an agnostic position would be sufficient, but in this case theists make definite claims that there are severe consequences to one's choice in this matter, which necessitates some further thought on the validity of theist beliefs.
So, let's take a common position of theists: "God wants you to do X". This is an unsubstantiated claim of the supernatural, which means that it is also equally valid that "God wants you not to do X". The result of this is that, given any action, the negative supernatural consequences are equal in weight to the positive supernatural consequences. This gives a simple, practical result - as far as theism is concerned, believing in the absence of a deity is equivalent to considering an infinity of equally likely deities. Consequently, for practical decision-making, it is a good idea to be strongly atheist.
I will concur that there are in-your-face atheists, and yes, they appear "dogmatic." I do have a slight problem with gnostics - those who assert that we can know whether or not there is a god - because the claim of a god is an untestable hypothesis. We simply cannot assess its truth. Thus, it's equally likely that any given god - Thor, Odin, FSM, etc - exists compared to other gods (since we can't assess if any are more true than any other), and since many of these claims are mutually exclusive, our only rational choice is rejection of the claim.
The more i see these arguments, the more I realize something: People who believe in a religion cannot help but see atheism as similar but opposed to their own beliefs. That is to say, they can't understand that there is such a thing as "lack of belief", and I think that's what causes a lot of these semantic arguments about religion. It's a subtle distinction, but there is a difference between 'I don't believe in God' and "I believe God doesn't exists". The latter, as Scott and a few others have been pointing out, makes a claim about something that we, almost by definition, can't prove either way. The former is more akin to "I don't know if my coffee cup is full". As an atheist, you don't "Believe in Nothing", like many assert, you simply don't believe in God.
The more i see these arguments, the more I realize something: People who believe in a religion cannot help but see atheism as similar but opposed to their own beliefs.
People who believe in a religion often can't help but see EVERYTHING that they're opposed to as another "religion". Hence, the "religion of evolution", the "religion of science" and all that. (Or even the claim that all atheists really do believe in god, but we're just being rebellious.) There does seem to be a fundamental problem in many of these people with understanding that other people may not only come to different conclusions than they do, but actually have completely different thought-processes and ways of arriving at those conclusions.
People who believe in a religion often can't help but see EVERYTHING that they're opposed to as another "religion". Hence, the "religion of evolution", the "religion of science" and all that. (Or even the claim that all atheistsreally dobelieve in god, but we're just being rebellious.) There does seem to be a fundamental problem in many of these people with understanding that other people may not only come to different conclusions than they do, but actually have completely different thought-processes and ways of arriving at those conclusions.
I think this stems from their inability or unwillingness to properly define the concepts of belief and faith. It appears that many that describe themselves as believing in a deity or deities or having faith attempt to support that faith with "proof". This is nonsensical when faith is to believe in something without proof. This confusion of concepts leads them to surmise that any opinion or school of thought is approached with the same attitude of reason muddled with faith, because they cannot step outside themselves and separate the concepts.
I know what you're saying. But everyone is going to jump on you anyway for not wording this correctly. There is no "dogma" so atheists can not, by definition, be dogmatic. But I believe this is what you really mean.
I am using the word correctly because a dogma is simply a set of ideas taken as both true and authoritative. This describes the actions of a good number of extreme atheists, those who fail to show any bit of doubt. Unless you say that their actions and words are not representative of their thoughts (in which case what can we judge them by?) I don't see how it can be said that there aren't strong atheists who are dogmatic. Your re-wording, Sail, didn't change the meaning.
So, let's take a common position of theists: "God wants you to do X". This is an unsubstantiated claim of the supernatural, which means that it is also equally valid that "God wants you not to do X". The result of this is that, given any action, the negative supernatural consequences are equal in weight to the positive supernatural consequences. This gives a simple, practical result - as far as theism is concerned, believing in the absence of a deity is equivalent to considering an infinity of equally likely deities. Consequently, for practical decision-making, it is a good idea to be strongly atheist.
I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. Whether an agnostic or moderate atheist (that's less pejorative than 'weak', right?) when making a decision they do not base the choice on any theistic beliefs or stances.
The more i see these arguments, the more I realize something: People who believe in a religion cannot help but see atheism as similar but opposed to their own beliefs. That is to say, they can't understand that there is such a thing as "lack of belief", and I think that's what causes a lot of these semantic arguments about religion. It's a subtle distinction, but there is a difference between 'I don't believe in God' and "I believe God doesn't exists". The latter, as Scott and a few others have been pointing out, makes a claim about something that we, almost by definition, can't prove either way. The former is more akin to "I don't know if my coffee cup is full". As an atheist, you don't "Believe in Nothing", like many assert, you simply don't believe in God.
People who believe in a religion often can't help but see EVERYTHING that they're opposed to as another "religion". Hence, the "religion of evolution", the "religion of science" and all that. (Or even the claim that all atheistsreally dobelieve in god, but we're just being rebellious.) There does seem to be a fundamental problem in many of these people with understanding that other people may not only come to different conclusions than they do, but actually have completely different thought-processes and ways of arriving at those conclusions.
I think this stems from their inability or unwillingness to properly define the concepts of belief and faith. It appears that many that describe themselves as believing in a deity or deities or having faith attempt to support that faith with "proof". This is nonsensical when faith is to believe in something without proof. This confusion of concepts leads them to surmise that any opinion or school of thought is approached with the same attitude of reason muddled with faith, because they cannot step outside themselves and separate the concepts.
Look at you, you armchair-psychologists! How profound, your insight, and how penetrating, your wisdom. And I presume it is I who is your poor, confused, theistic subject who can't make the difference between the evidence of lack and the lack of evidence.
Except I have never argued for theism! I have oscillated between atheism and agnosticism throughout this thread, but never have I been a man of religion.
And you, Neito, lay accolades before your precious Scott, who can make the distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack. Except he, himself, screwed up. Look at his words:
Let's say someone is on trial for bank robbery. Their alibi is that they were drinking coffee at the Starbucks at the time. So we check the Starbucks receipts, and they didn't sell any coffee at that time. It was an empty store. There is no physical evidence to prove whether or not the person was at the Starbucks or not. But that lack of evidence is itself evidence. If they were drinking coffee at the Starbucks, there would be a receipt. The lack of a receipt proves they did not buy a coffee there at that time.
Going into the store and finding evidence of no one being there as well as going into the store records and seeing no listings of business transactions is evidence of lack. Lack of evidence would be the inability to access the store grounds or it's records.
I know what you're saying. But everyone is going to jump on you anyway for not wording this correctly. There is no "dogma" so atheists can not, by definition, be dogmatic. But I believe this is what you really mean.
I am using the word correctly because a dogma is simply a set of ideas taken as both true and authoritative. This describes the actions of a good number of extreme atheists, those who fail to show any bit of doubt blah blah blah
Atheism cannot possibly be dogmatic because it lacks a philosophy about which to be dogmatic.
And I presume it is I who is your poor, confused, theistic subject who can't make the difference between the evidence of lack and the lack of evidence.
At least in my case, and I suspect in the cases of Neito and Kate, you presume incorrectly. Why do you think it's all about you? Why are you taking this so personally?
Comments
Solipsism. Cogito Ergo Sum. The only thing you can know for certain is that you yourself exist. Everything else is philosophically possible.
That's it. That's all of the philosophy that is pertinent to this discussion. Anything beyond that enters the practical and physical realm where science takes over. Unless you are refuting solipsism, there is no relevant philosophy to discuss. Everything else is outside of the philosophical realm.
And again, burden of proof applies to specific claims that aren't broad. I suppose that you can technically apply burden of proof to broader claims, but you'll wind up drawing a conclusion similar to the conclusion you would draw in a science experiment with a low confidence interval.
Let's dissect your claim that the atheist argument is "God doesn't exist." I'm going to assume that the "God" in that statement refers to the God described in the King James version of the Bible. We apply burden of proof and require me to demonstrate why that is. OK, fine. I have several pieces of evidence that directly contradict well-established facts in the same text that describes God; the Great Flood described in Genesis never occurred in the way described, the flight from Egypt described in Exodus never occurred, and there's no giant flaming sword guarding the gates to Eden any more (anyone remember that?). The Bible makes those many specific claims, none of which are substantiated by reality. Thus, those specific claims are false. You can continue going through the Bible and refuting these specific claims, until you are left with a thoroughly pigeonholed version of God, one that does not at all resemble the one in the Bible, nor the one to which we typically refer when saying "God."
In other words, your summary of the position of an atheist if flawed. It's better stated as "The God described in the Bible very probably does not exist in the manner described in that book." If you won't concede this point, this argument can't continue.
As I've stated repeatedly, burden of proof requires a specific claim in order to be effective. You don't disprove all ghosts when you debunk a haunting; you disprove that haunting. After collecting thousands of such specific debunkings, you begin to develop a theoretical model, one that will allow you to predict the outcome of a given haunting scenario. It might be something like, "I can say with 95% confidence that the causal agent of this haunting can be explained naturally." That's how burden of proof really works. It's often behind the scenes in day-to-day conversation, but if you approach things from the skeptical philosophy, that's how it works.
One last clarification, you say 'Atheism' is a general claim, so it is the default?
Let's say you are in court. You've been accused of committing murder. But you say you didn't do it; it was a masked man who did it. The police have all kinds of evidence that points to you committing the crime, but they didn't find any evidence of a masked man. Still, you believe he was the one who pulled the trigger. The default position is that there was no masked man until you submit proof he was there.
EDIT: To clarify, saying you haven't rebuked a claim isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a statement of fact.
Your definition of atheism is flawed. Yes, saying "God does not exist" is an atheistic claim, but it's too narrow to be truly reflective of atheism in general.
Think of it like this: If I were to point at the Westboro Baptist Church and say "Religious people are crazy," I'm making a flawed argument. I'm using a narrow subset to stereotype a broad and diverse group. Likewise, saying that a group as broad as "atheist" (those who lack faith) all make the same specific statement is too narrow to truly be reflective of the group at large.
Again, when we're talking about burden of proof, everything has to be specific. Test enough specific claims and you can start putting them together into a framework.
I will be obtuse. People who call themselves atheists and adhere to the definition of atheism commit the same fallacy as theists. Atheism does not have the presumption of innocence.
Theism and atheism are two sides of the same spectrum, and to say that atheism is somehow more narrow than theism is ridiculous. It's as if I said that Christians/Jews/Taoists/etc were not theists, they were just one of the myriad of other theologies because their claims were more specific than that of theism (a belief in God).
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any sort of higher power because it is impossible to know if it exists or not. There are gnostic theists (we can know and I do believe), gnostic atheists (we can know and I don't believe), and agnostic theists (we can't know but I believe anyhow).
We can't know and I don't believe. Agnostic atheism.
So long as we don't fall into the trap of dogmatism, I guess I'm fine.
I don't mean this to act superior, its just that the forums at times seem to be conceited.
Religions are dogmatic. Atheism cannot possibly be dogmatic because it lacks a philosophy about which to be dogmatic.
It's sort of how there's technically no such thing as "cold." We describe the ambient conditions as "cold" when there is a large disparity in the amount of heat energy available. Same principle. You either have faith (and thus adhere to a particular dogma), or you don't. We just have a different word to describe the status of "not theistic."
EDIT: Substitute 'That' for They
Quit while you're behind.
While we're on the topic, theism has a more specific meaning of belief in a god that can be related to as a person (a personal god), though it's easier, particularly for this discussion, to consider it as a general term meaning belief in the existence of at least one deity. In particular, considering a different definition of theism results in a different definition of atheism, so we definitely need to choose one.
So, now that that's sorted out, we can discuss the position of "strong atheism" - the explicit denial of the existence of deities.
Even if we set solipsism aside and attempt to be practical, because of the definition of "supernatural" we cannot know for certain whether a given deity exists, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This, naturally, results in a position of agnosticism. Normally, an agnostic position would be sufficient, but in this case theists make definite claims that there are severe consequences to one's choice in this matter, which necessitates some further thought on the validity of theist beliefs.
So, let's take a common position of theists: "God wants you to do X". This is an unsubstantiated claim of the supernatural, which means that it is also equally valid that "God wants you not to do X". The result of this is that, given any action, the negative supernatural consequences are equal in weight to the positive supernatural consequences. This gives a simple, practical result - as far as theism is concerned, believing in the absence of a deity is equivalent to considering an infinity of equally likely deities. Consequently, for practical decision-making, it is a good idea to be strongly atheist.
It's a subtle distinction, but there is a difference between 'I don't believe in God' and "I believe God doesn't exists". The latter, as Scott and a few others have been pointing out, makes a claim about something that we, almost by definition, can't prove either way. The former is more akin to "I don't know if my coffee cup is full". As an atheist, you don't "Believe in Nothing", like many assert, you simply don't believe in God.
Look at you, you armchair-psychologists! How profound, your insight, and how penetrating, your wisdom. And I presume it is I who is your poor, confused, theistic subject who can't make the difference between the evidence of lack and the lack of evidence.
Except I have never argued for theism! I have oscillated between atheism and agnosticism throughout this thread, but never have I been a man of religion.
And you, Neito, lay accolades before your precious Scott, who can make the distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack. Except he, himself, screwed up. Look at his words: Going into the store and finding evidence of no one being there as well as going into the store records and seeing no listings of business transactions is evidence of lack. Lack of evidence would be the inability to access the store grounds or it's records.