Dogmatic Atheism

[cjh156]

The following link shows the erroneous logic of the dogmatic atheist. This is not pointed at all atheists, because there are many who are passive atheists and don't make the dogmatic claims of the active atheist. I have seen both types here, so this should induce some interesting conversation. I ask one thing, please read the entire essay before flying off the cuff and responding.

http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm

[LouieSS]

i unfortunately dont have the time to read it all right now, however if it says something along the lines of....

"atheists cannot disprove the fact, or possibility, of a greater power anymore than theists can prove it"

i wholeheartedly agree.
yes im atheist, but that is my view on it, i just know very confidently that no religion on earth has it right or is even close

[PickItUp]

Sorry, but I am not reading all that. I did read the first two paragraphs, and it has me redefining my religious position a little.

I would have referred to myself as a Theist...but based on what was written in this paragraph:

Theism is the belief in a personal God who is interested in the minute details of daily life and who intervenes in the workings of nature through miracles. Other aspects of theism are the acceptance of direct revelation from God to prophets and holy men in times past, the importance of ritual, the leadership of a clerical body, and government support; all of these aspects exist in all theistic religions to some degree. Deism is a rational religion where God is generally seen as impersonal and nature accepted as the only true revelation, the very handiwork of God; holy books, ritual, and clerics are viewed as superstition.

I am somewhere between Theism and Deism. I believe in the prophets, and revelations, but I do not feel that God plays a direct role in the minute day to day activities that we observe and participate in. Those details are recorded and preserved, but I don't feel that God directly interferes with those minute details. The level of personalness that we have with God is where I tend to differ. God does not need to interfere with our daily minute details. His creation takes care of itself...He does not need to micro-manage his Creations.

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by cjh156

I ask one thing, please read the entire essay before flying off the cuff and responding.

http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm

It's your thread. Why don't you summarize the essay and tell us exactly what you're talking about. And...I don't know....maybe post some of your own thoughts on the subject...

Just doing a quick skim - I can already see that the article is ridiculous. I don't remember ever seeing any atheist claim that "science proves that God doesn't exist". That's absurd. Just like science can never prove that our whole world isn't a computer generated program (yes Matrix).

And as far as "dogmatic atheist" goes - couldn't that refer to Buddhists? What the hell is atheist dogma?

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

It's your thread. Why don't you summarize the essay and tell us exactly what you're talking about. And...I don't know....maybe post some of your own thoughts on the subject...

To be honest summarizing what I have read, or writing in general, has never been my strong suit.

The Concluding paragraph of the essay says it well

"In conclusion, the dogmatic atheist?s assertions on the creator issue are invalid as demonstrated in this paper. Every argument presented by dogmatic atheists involving science to disprove a Creator is fallacious; there is no scientific evidence proving or even demonstrating a Creator does not exist, and there is no scientific research into the ?God? issue. The shameful misuse of science by dogmatic atheists is due to their failing to make distinctions between science fiction and science (nonfiction). Dogmatic atheism, for all its pretensions to scientific literacy, is in effect composed of people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and addicted to argumentum ad verecundiam (arguments from modesty). These people are not skeptics or freethinkers but modern cynics -- the great naysayers. Deism is the only religion which is science friendly. The naturalistic approach to science should be encouraged because eventually by the process of elimination, it can indirectly provide evidence for a Creator and with time maybe find not only evidence of a Creator, but the Creator itself."

[AtheoS]

Funny, so as an atheist I am wrong becuase I am unabel to disprove a creator, but I dont see any evidence proving the existance of a creator. So we are the illogical non-free thinkers. The Irony.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by AtheoS

Funny, so as an atheist I am wrong becuase I am unabel to disprove a creator, but I dont see any evidence proving the existance of a creator. So we are the illogical non-free thinkers. The Irony.

Did you read the essay, because this is the off the cuff remark I was referring to? The author is not saying all atheists are illogical non free thinkers, just those who fallaciously misuse science to back their dogmatic arguments.

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by cjh156

To be honest summarizing what I have read, or writing in general, has never been my strong suit.

The Concluding paragraph of the essay says it well

"In conclusion, the dogmatic atheist?s assertions on the creator issue are invalid as demonstrated in this paper. Every argument presented by dogmatic atheists involving science to disprove a Creator is fallacious; there is no scientific evidence proving or even demonstrating a Creator does not exist, and there is no scientific research into the ?God? issue. The shameful misuse of science by dogmatic atheists is due to their failing to make distinctions between science fiction and science (nonfiction). Dogmatic atheism, for all its pretensions to scientific literacy, is in effect composed of people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and addicted to argumentum ad verecundiam (arguments from modesty). These people are not skeptics or freethinkers but modern cynics -- the great naysayers. Deism is the only religion which is science friendly. The naturalistic approach to science should be encouraged because eventually by the process of elimination, it can indirectly provide evidence for a Creator and with time maybe find not only evidence of a Creator, but the Creator itself."

I'm still having problems with the term "dogmatic atheist". It isn't an accurate representation. Like I said before - Buddhists are atheists who follow a dogma - that would make them dogmatic atheists, but doesn't mean that they claim that science disproves God.

And once again - a very small number of atheists would claim that science disproves God. Even within the small number of atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist not many would claim that they have proof for that claim.

But if any of those people are present, we'll let them speak for themselves.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

I'm still having problems with the term "dogmatic atheist". It isn't an accurate representation. Like I said before - Buddhists are atheists who follow a dogma - that would make them dogmatic atheists, but doesn't mean that they claim that science disproves God.

And once again - a very small number of atheists would claim that science disproves God. Even within the small number of atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist not many would claim that they have proof for that claim.

But if any of those people are present, we'll let them speak for themselves.

The author isn't suing the term "dogmatic" to refer to the following of a Dogma. The definition he is using is this

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>

He also clearly makes a distinction between passive atheists and active atheists, or dogmatic atheists. I agree that not all claim proof of the nonresistance of God, this particular essay is referring to those who do. If you read through many of atheists post here you'll find a fair amount of this kind of thought. Like I stated in my first post, that both types have posted here.

[tenthirtytwo]

You could rewrite this paper on how everyone declares "there is no Easter Bunny", "there is no Zeus", and "there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" but they have no scientific evidence for it. Would you agree with that as well? Would that be a sensible paper topic? Would it cause you to reconsider the notion that the Easter Bunny, Zeus, and the FSM doesn't exist?

There is enough evidence (or lack of evidence) to assume there is no personable deity out there pulling strings. There is additionally logical evidence that disproves the existence of the standard deity (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.).

For what it's worth, most atheists I know might say "there is no God", but what they really mean is "there is no good reason to believe that a god exists based on current evidence." I've only met maybe 2-3 of the so called "dogmatic atheists" in my lifetime, that declare with 100% certainty that no god exists.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

You could rewrite this paper on how everyone declares "there is no Easter Bunny", "there is no Zeus", and "there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" but they have no scientific evidence for it. Would you agree with that as well? Would that be a sensible paper topic? Would it cause you to reconsider the notion that the Easter Bunny, Zeus, and the FSM doesn't exist?

I don't think the author is saying that this proves the existence of God, what he's saying is that you cannot use science as an argument to back the opinion that god does or does not exist, and to do so shows ignorance and misuse.

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

There is enough evidence (or lack of evidence) to assume there is no personable deity out there pulling strings.

Are you stating there is scientific evidence of this?

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

There is additionally logical evidence that disproves the existence of the standard deity (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.).

I agree with this

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

For what it's worth, most atheists I know might say "there is no God", but what they really mean is "there is no good reason to believe that a god exists based on current evidence." I've only met maybe 2-3 of the so called "dogmatic atheists" in my lifetime, that declare with 100% certainty that no god exists.

As I stated before, this is covered in the essay. Though if you read through many of the posts in this room you'll find there are plenty of dogmatic atheists here. In fact the dissonance thread has quite a few posts that would fit this definition perfectly.

[Rune]

Well... Just from the article "Theism is the belief in a personal God who is interested in the minute details of daily life and who intervenes in the workings of nature through miracles"

So atheism for me is simply be the anti-thesis to the above. If you don't believe in theism your an atheist, as I would define it. I think it's fine to be dogmatic about this to a degree, as there is far more evidence supporting the non-existance of a personal God vs proof for it. As funny and contradictory as it may sound I would consider myself a pantheist/monist of sorts as well, there is no supernatural, only the natural and that is the same as God, it is everywhere, it "creates", etc.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by Rune

Well... Just from the article "Theism is the belief in a personal God who is interested in the minute details of daily life and who intervenes in the workings of nature through miracles"

So atheism for me is simply be the anti-thesis to the above. If you don't believe in theism your an atheist, as I would define it. I think it's fine to be dogmatic about this to a degree, as there is far more evidence supporting the non-existance of a personal God vs proof for it. As funny and contradictory as it may sound I would consider myself a pantheist/monist of sorts as well, there is no supernatural, only the natural and that is the same as God, it is everywhere, it "creates", etc.

There is logical evidence against the theistic idea of GOD, but no scientific evidence, since there is no scientific research into the matter.

I'm kind of in the same realm as more deist that leans towards pantheism.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by cjh156

I don't think the author is saying that this proves the existence of God, what he's saying is that you cannot use science as an argument to back the opinion that god does or does not exist, and to do so shows ignorance and misuse.

We can use science to fill in the gaps that theists like to stick gods into. Theists have attributed all sorts of phenomenon (not just creation) to various gods throughout time (lightning and fertility, just to name 2). We now know through science that there is nothing mystical and magical about it. There are physical and biological processes that account for this.

The problem, with the theistic side, becomes why should we accept a theistic explanation for anything, when so far the deck has been 100% stacked in the favor of science? Just because we don't know how it all started (and may never know how it all started) doesn't make a theistic position any stronger. They just substitute "I don't know" with "goddidit". I could very well say this way of thinking also shows ignorance and misuse as well.

Are you stating there is scientific evidence of this?

Scientific evidence that there is no magical being creating the force of gravity? Yep. Scientific evidence that no mystical creature is pushing the earth around the sun? Yep. We have so much evidence of physical and biological processes that there aren't too many gaps left for a god, aside from creation of the universe which isn't fully understood, and "miracles" that never seem to happen in a place that they can be verified.

You seem to have it a bit backwards, like science would need evidence to prove that no god exists. This is called 'proving a negative' and is impossible.

As I stated before, this is covered in the essay. Though if you read through many of the posts in this room you'll find there are plenty of dogmatic atheists here. In fact the dissonance thread has quite a few posts that would fit this definition perfectly.

There may be plenty here, I haven't been on here in a long time. I do know that as an atheist, I've been confronted with this same proposition many times, and had "dogmatic atheism" ascribed to me when I don't accept it at all. To a believer, there are many more "dogmatic atheists" out there than really exist.

[LouieSS]

Originally Posted by AtheoS

Funny, so as an atheist I am wrong becuase I am unabel to disprove a creator, but I dont see any evidence proving the existance of a creator. So we are the illogical non-free thinkers. The Irony.

hey man, dont get on the defensive. everyone is entitled to their opinion. but you have to keep an open mind on things as well.

The fact of the matter is, as an atheist i believe i am completely correct in saying that the god that we believe in on earth is not real, sorry to break the news to everyone, however, i absolutely CAN NOT disprove the possibility of a greater power, whatever that power may be. there is still always the question of... and before that? and before that? and before that? etc.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

We can use science to fill in the gaps that theists like to stick gods into. Theists have attributed all sorts of phenomenon (not just creation) to various gods throughout time (lightning and fertility, just to name 2). We now know through science that there is nothing mystical and magical about it. There are physical and biological processes that account for this...


The problem, with the theistic side, becomes why should we accept a theistic explanation for anything, when so far the deck has been 100% stacked in the favor of science? Just because we don't know how it all started (and may never know how it all started) doesn't make a theistic position any stronger. They just substitute "I don't know" with "goddidit". I could very well say this way of thinking also shows ignorance and misuse as well.

The article isn't backing the dogmatic theistic argument of "goddidit" It's arguing the misuse of of science to back dogmatic atheism. It is in no way is back the theistic ideas you are referring to.

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

Scientific evidence that there is no magical being creating the force of gravity? Yep. Scientific evidence that no mystical creature is pushing the earth around the sun? Yep. We have so much evidence of physical and biological processes that there aren't too many gaps left for a god, aside from creation of the universe which isn't fully understood, and "miracles" that never seem to happen in a place that they can be verified.

You seem to have it a bit backwards, like science would need evidence to prove that no god exists. This is called 'proving a negative' and is impossible.

it's funny you should mention the 'proving a negative' Argument, because the article spends quite a bit of time on that atheistic cop out.

Please read the article, i think you will find it does a very fair job explaining why the dogmatic approach to the existence or non existence of god is flawed when you try to incorporate science

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

There may be plenty here, I haven't been on here in a long time. I do know that as an atheist, I've been confronted with this same proposition many times, and had "dogmatic atheism" ascribed to me when I don't accept it at all. To a believer, there are many more "dogmatic atheists" out there than really exist.

Define believer? I think the use of dogmatic arguments can be seen pretty objectively no matter if you're a believer or not.

[B_Master_Flash]

Another attack against the mythological "strong atheists." Where are all these atheists? I talk to atheists all the time on these forums, and the only people I've seen that seem to fit the article's description are considered trolls, even by other atheists.

The dogmatic atheist like the dogmatic theist is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view.

This paper is filled with non-academic garbage like this and never confronts the heart of actual atheism, which just claims that there is not enough evidence of a creator to warrant belief in one.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by B_Master_Flash

Another attack against the mythological "strong atheists." Where are all these atheists? I talk to atheists all the time on these forums, and the only people I've seen that seem to fit the article's description are considered trolls, even by other atheists.



This paper is filled with non-academic garbage like this and never confronts the heart of actual atheism, which just claims that there is not enough evidence of a creator to warrant belief in one.

i have to call ad hominem on this

I don't think the article is disputing atheism itself, but dogmatic atheists. I find it interesting how many atheists on this board ignore the many post by fellow atheists that fit dogmatic arguments. I see them all the time, but have only seen a few atheists call out other atheists on this flawed logic.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by cjh156

it's funny you should mention the 'proving a negative' Argument, because the article spends quite a bit of time on that atheistic cop out.

I only saw 2 references to it. The first says:

An affirmative statement that something can be proven not to exist is workable.

Prove to me that invisible flashlights don't exist. It isn't a cop out, it's a logical impossibility.

Define believer? I think the use of dogmatic arguments can be seen pretty objectively no matter if you're a believer or not.

I suppose it would have to include you, since you seem to see them all over the place.

[Boffman]

Originally Posted by cjh156

i have to call ad hominem on this

I don't think the article is disputing atheism itself, but dogmatic atheists.

Exactly, if this was an attempt to dispute atheism then it phails.

I find it interesting how many atheists on this board ignore the many post by fellow atheists that fit dogmatic arguments. I see them all the time, but have only seen a few atheists call out other atheists on this flawed logic.

That's because atheists are more concerned with debating theists.

[B_Master_Flash]

Originally Posted by cjh156

i have to call ad hominem on this

On what? The article had a rant which insulted people without addressing any issues, how is me pointing it out an "ad hoinem?"

I don't think the article is disputing atheism itself, but dogmatic atheists.

Yes, very true. My point is that in reality, the "dogmatic atheists" are a very small subset of atheists that no one really takes seriously.

I find it interesting how many atheists on this board ignore the many post by fellow atheists that fit dogmatic arguments. I see them all the time, but have only seen a few atheists call out other atheists on this flawed logic.

Is there anything you can link me to, or are you just going to keep repeating that you see them all the time? Like I said before, I've seen people that fit the description in the article and they're called trolls.

Nice attempt to tie the rest of the atheists with dogmatic atheists btw, lol.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

Scientific evidence that there is no magical being creating the force of gravity?

I dunno, some might say that the massive amount of information transfer between particles on the quantum level (be it in the form of gravitons, or photons from phase transitions, etc) for gravity to even work is still some what "magical", the simple fact that each of these peices function together in a consistant action-reaction manner really kind of blows your mind when you know the massive scale of it.

Really one has to realize that science will and can only tell you HOW something is functioning. That still leaves the question of WHY, science offers no explination to such a question, as it is out of it's reach (it can not be infered). Perhaps there is no why, perhaps whys are an emergent property of self-aware objects, but that is indeed a very difficult thing to think about with our limited perspective.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

I only saw 2 references to it. The first says:

An affirmative statement that something can be proven not to exist is workable.

Prove to me that invisible flashlights don't exist. It isn't a cop out, it's a logical impossibility.

"Although one hears that one cannot prove a negative, the fact remains that negatives can be proven by invalidating evidence. All that is needed is a hypothesis, model, theory, or a mere statement to be invalidated. Invalidating evidence is evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, model, theory, or statement. This can be cleared up with an example: if someone claimed there was a graveyard under his new lawn, then this claim can be either validated or invalidated by digging up the lawn. Finding nothing would be invalidating evidence. Depending on how one defines a Creator, there is no invalidating evidence against the possibility of such an entity."

The author alos goes into the burden of proof. Most atheist claim the believer hads the burden of proof, but as the author states

"If one publicly makes a statement, then one has the burden of providing reasons for that statement. This paper will now demonstrate by example that the Burden of Proof lies on the one making an affirmative statement. It is important to realize that an affirmative statement involves the wording of the statement and not just a positively worded statement. For example, the Burden of Proof equally applies to someone stating a mathematical formula is valid as one saying it is not valid. A proponent of a mathematical formula should be able to mathematically prove it, and an opponent of the formula can prove the formula flawed by showing that the proof does not work. An extremely simple example would be someone claiming that 18 is a prime number. A prime number is a number divisible only by itself and 1. The proponent would have to prove that 18 can only be divided by 1 and 18; while the opponent could easily prove that 18 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 18. Consider the following examples."

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

I suppose it would have to include you, since you seem to see them all over the place.

I'm a believer, because I don't agree with you and see dogmatic atheistic arguments all over this board??

[AtheoS]

Some atheists may be just as dogmatic as theists, but not all are. I know because I'm not. I do not amdmire anyone who says no evidence at all could even conceivably be presented to them which would at least make them view God's existence as more plausible. You have to be willing to look unwaveringly at the evidence and accept it's implications, no matter what they are.

However, I do not at all think it's necessarily reasonable to be agnostic about God's existence. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the probability of his existence. I would argue that the existence of fairies and leprechauns is quite improbable and yet, considerably more probable than God's existence as they aren't nearly so complex or demanding in terms of an explanation.

For me, I certainly can't say I absolutely know God does not exist, but his existence seems very improbable.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by B_Master_Flash

On what? The article had a rant which insulted people without addressing any issues, how is me pointing it out an "ad hoinem?"

Insulted people? Where did it do that? it just pointed out the how the some atheists are dogmatic in their arguments and showed where these arguments were fallicious. It openly stated in the begining the different types of ahtiest and never once insulted anyone. Did you read the article or are you just atacking it, becasue you don't agree wiht it?

Originally Posted by B_Master_Flash

Yes, very true. My point is that in reality, the "dogmatic atheists" are a very small subset of atheists that no one really takes seriously.

I'd say they are the more vocal, much like the "fundies" are the small vocal subset of the theists

Originally Posted by B_Master_Flash

Is there anything you can link me to, or are you just going to keep repeating that you see them all the time? Like I said before, I've seen people that fit the description in the article and they're called trolls.

Nice attempt to tie the rest of the atheists with dogmatic atheists btw, lol.

I'm not tying all atheists wiht dogmatic atheists in any way, what gives you that idea?

I've already stated a thread, but if you like here is the link to it, look at the reapers posts.....
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=109401251

?I understand where you're coming from. It seems intuitive that there must be a creator.

But: there is too little evidence that there is a creator, when you begin to analyse it further.

I don't have the energy or intention or inclination to go into detail about this, but here are some problems:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god intervening in human affairs. Why isn't there?
2. Evolution exhibits numerous examples of unintelligent design and monstrous (inherent) cruelty and indifference.
3. Life on earth is full of inexorable tragedy and unimaginable suffering.
4. Who created God?
5. Neuroscience has proven that the mind is the physiological activity of neural tissue. The "soul" is an illusion - it can be altered by physical processes. This is about as controversial amongst scientists as the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.
6. Why would a designer make such a complete botched up, awful job out of this. Look around you: this is not the product of an omniscient, benevolent god - this is not even second rate work.
7. Why does all our scientific evidence point overwhelmingly to the conclusion that god (along with goblins and fairies) does not actually exist?


It's painfully obvious.

And on and on it goes.?

Does that example work for you

[Less Than 3]

science can not be dogmatic.

[cjh156]

Originally Posted by AtheoS

Some atheists may be just as dogmatic as theists, but not all are. I know because I'm not. I do not amdmire anyone who says no evidence at all could even conceivably be presented to them which would at least make them view God's existence as more plausible. You have to be willing to look unwaveringly at the evidence and accept it's implications, no matter what they are.

However, I do not at all think it's necessarily reasonable to be agnostic about God's existence. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the probability of his existence. I would argue that the existence of fairies and leprechauns is quite improbable and yet, considerably more probable than God's existence as they aren't nearly so complex or demanding in terms of an explanation.

For me, I certainly can't say I absolutely know God does not exist, but his existence seems very improbable.

I think this is the way most rational people are. They lean one way or another, but do not claim absolutes.

i didn't post this as an attack on all atheists, just to create conversation and bring out some thought on some of the more extreme atheistic arguments. I remember recently Reading a poster who was proud to be a militant atheist, which in my mind is equal to a fundamental theist. Not all atheists are this way and I have seen quite a few rational open minded atheists on this board also

One of the atheist posters I most respect, actually one of the posters I most respect period on these boards is neekz0r. Ahteist or not, he is very rational and calls out dogma on either side.

[Boffman]

Originally Posted by cjh156

. I remember recently Reading a poster who was proud to be a militant atheist, which in my mind is equal to a fundamental theist.

Militant atheism isn't 100% correct, but in no way can you compare it to fundamental theism.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by cjh156

"Although one hears that one cannot prove a negative, the fact remains that negatives can be proven by invalidating evidence. All that is needed is a hypothesis, model, theory, or a mere statement to be invalidated. Invalidating evidence is evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, model, theory, or statement. This can be cleared up with an example: if someone claimed there was a graveyard under his new lawn, then this claim can be either validated or invalidated by digging up the lawn. Finding nothing would be invalidating evidence. Depending on how one defines a Creator, there is no invalidating evidence against the possibility of such an entity."

So, they say that you can't prove a negative...then they back this up by giving an example of disproving a positive statement?

How about you prove that there is NO graveyard under my new lawn. What would you do? Start digging? No, it's deeper. Get to the core of the earth? No, still deeper. End up on the other side of the world? No, keep going out into space. It's out there somewhere. Way out there.

So of course there is no invalidating evidence against the POSSIBILITY of god, because this is evidence that proves "there is no god" which is a negative statement.

I urge you to re-read this part of the article so you can understand what they did. Unless you agree with it, in which case I'll again ask you to prove that there are no invisible flashlights.

[ripper6]

Originally Posted by AtheoS

Funny, so as an atheist I am wrong becuase I am unabel to disprove a creator, but I dont see any evidence proving the existance of a creator. So we are the illogical non-free thinkers. The Irony.

Correct. The dogmatic atheist is irrational. Agnosticism would the the logical position to take.

This is a good read and a good expose of the dogmatic/irrational atheist.


http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Ath...7005174&sr=8-1

A perceptive examination of modern day atheism, this book challenges the argument that religion and reason are fundamentally at odds?a contention made by three prominent scholars on atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. While other religious apologetics have challenged atheism on theological or biblical grounds, this book fights fire with fire, disproving the scholars' logic through modern, secular reason. Rigorously documented and supported by hard factual data, this careful analysis is critical reading for any religious person seeking to rebut the assertions of new atheists and essential information for any open-minded atheist who wants his beliefs to stand on firm ground.