Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What experience would I possibly have to make me think dogma is bad?
That's a pretty generic term, and it covers a wide range of things. You need to differentiate between what is good and bad.
Maybe you had an experience that dogma is good? I'm not here to tell you what is good and bad.
I was just wondering from other perspectives, not my own opinion or belief. Viewing things from a lens outside of one's own can be beneficial sometimes
Maybe you had an experience that dogma is good? I'm not here to tell you what is good and bad.
I was just wondering from other perspectives, not my own opinion or belief. Viewing things from a lens outside of one's own can be beneficial sometimes
The doctrine of the Trinity is an example of good dogma.
Is there an example of bad dogma you have issue with?
Wouldn't it depend on how it's interpreted, especially if it leads to intolerance, hate and segregation?
It would indeed. A Dogma of ...say...Seeding promising real benefits if you just send the bastards money, if the proceeds were directed into genuine charity might be considered Good Dogma, whereas it being diverted into providing a scoundrel with a Learjet (1) that is Bad, Bad Dogma, It is on all reason False Dogma either way and strictly speaking if it was true, it would be fact rather than Dogma.
(1) You're right it Burns me - I have to PAY for my air rides.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-30-2017 at 11:31 AM..
Wouldn't it depend on how it's interpreted, especially if it leads to intolerance, hate and segregation?
The doctrine is the doctrine. The behavior of people in regards to that does not make it good or bad any more than if I told you 2 + 2 = 4 and you punched me in the nose over it means math is bad. Truth is truth. What people do with it is the issue.
I would think that person is close minded and definitely not friends with any atheists.
I think "wankers" in this context is making a reference to mental masturbation, in the sense of accepting beliefs based on how they feel without regard to their veracity. I think that is an honest and valid critique of religious faith. It is not flattering, or tactful, but it's fair and honest.
If someone said that about atheists, I would simply agree to the extent that it's true, and ignore it to the extent it's not. Life is too short to be all up in arms about what someone else thinks and how personally they did or didn't intend it to be. All I can say about Transponder is that the full body of his writing suggests someone who is actually quite patient with the slow-witted and willfully ignorant, more so really than myself. I respect him for that. On the other hand, his internal dialog here was in reference to whether what was on offer by religion was for HIM or not. His judgment was that it was delusional and self-ratifying nonsense and so NOT for HIM.
There's a fallacy abroad in the world today that people can declare themselves offended as if that gives them certain rights, generally to be catered to in some way. You're offended? Well so what. Go nurse your grudges if that's what your belief system encourages you to do. I don't give a fig. But I'm certainly not going to flutter about you and try to calm you down like I've done something wrong by simply calling it as I see it.
That said, I don't go out of my way to be offensive or provocative or harsh (neither in my experience does Transponder -- his relation of his internal dialog is completely different from what gets past his filters to people around him). So ... I will confess here and now for one & all that I have thought TO MYSELF at times, what a bunch of willfully ignorant fools, in relation to some ridiculous assertion or prognostication of theists ... and also, of course, implicit in my leaving the faith is the notion that the faith is not worth hewing to. If that offends, then too bad, so sad, sorry but that's the way it is. However ... if I find that someone is a believer In Real Life, I do not verbally assault them, either.
Indeed, a high level executive that I have to deal with from time to time, a very fundamentalist believer, constantly induces internal cringing and eye-rolling with his witless pronouncements (such as introducing himself at the annual company meeting as a "man of deep faith and prayer" as if that bit of ostentation is relevant to being a VP of Sales or of unwritten rules of business decorum). But he'll never know what a fool I take him for in terms of his philosophical / existential / epistemological positions, because all I have to deal with him regarding, is his business acumen, which, thankfully, unlike his theological chops, is nonzero and at least adequate.
The doctrine is the doctrine. The behavior of people in regards to that does not make it good or bad any more than if I told you 2 + 2 = 4 and you punched me in the nose over it means math is bad. Truth is truth. What people do with it is the issue.
That's basically it. The actions of people over it is the issue, (whether they behave bad or good as a result) that makes it Dogma. What makes it Dogma is to say 'You will believe this because I, they, We or it, say so". The point here is that the question of evidence is secondary, if even revelant, in Dogma, whereas in Science it is primary. You teach out of a science book because what's in is considered true on evidence.
One teaches Dogma because it is the Book and never mind the evidence.
Now, while the believers will try to validate the Dogma by supporting it with fact, the notorious method is 'This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to fit it?"
It is even worse than that. The fact are fiddled to fit, because of course by and large, they don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
promising real benefits if you just send the bastards money, if the proceeds were directed into genuine charity might be considered Good Dogma, whereas it being diverted into providing a scoundrel with a Learjet (1) that is Bad, Bad Dogma, It is on all reason False Dogma either way and strictly speaking if it was true, it would be fact rather than Dogma. 
