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.
Well, polemic might have been a bit strong. Pejorative might have been closer. It is still using a term that doesn't apply to the rationale of atheism (never mind what what some may do, and even less what theists think or do) that can be used to misrepresent atheism in order to discredit it.
That is what you are doing. Non belief is a conclusion - not a dogma.
It is just one place on the line from Holybook belief to personal god belief to irreligious theism to a sorta deist -pantheism. Nobody os forcing Dogma on any of these, once they are past Holy Books and personal gods, where Dogma is what it's all about.
Claim are made that are to be accepted. Just because it says so. True, there are reasons given, but they are not good reasons and the bottom line it - believe.
You can accept the Dogma or not. As soon as you stop accepting it, you are not buying into Dogma. One may still have a belief in a cosmic mind (God) or something spiritual, but this is a personal belief, not Dogma. It follows that atheism is way beyons dogma. If we make a claim, we can back it up with logic and evidence and if you are shown to be mistaken in any of it, we change the argument.
This is not only ther antithesis of Dogma but is amusingly why theists see their Unchanging stance as somehow better. Dogma and faith and refusal to listen, change or budge are considered better.
sure thing.
dogma "a principle or set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true"
"something held as an established opinion, a definite authoritative tenet"
"a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds"
samples from right here on CD, all direct quotes:
I get a charge out of seeing people arguing over the proper interpretation of complete nonsense.
The campaign for irreligion may be the most important thing going on in the USA at the moment.
I look in and see them fencing with Biblequotes and i think "what a way to spend a life"
prayer doesn't work
what it says is insupportable superstitious nonsense.
it boggles my mind how such a large percentage of the population goes to church to worship a God that doesn't exist
God doesn't exist and shows absolutely no signs of existing. Its just so primitive.
once humans became smart enough to build things, have reasoning skills, write, speak, create civilizations, we would have reached the level of intelligence to realize there is no God
we can decide whether we want to know or whether we want to just believe.
believers have no valid basis for their "Knowledge" other than feelings and experiences which they only think they understand
whereas atheists have knowledge which we know is entirely justified.
I'd want to be the 1st in line to tell him what a sick evil ahole he is for allowing so much violence, torment, disease, and turmoil
atheists use their cognitive processes more effectively
there is no logical reason to postulate a god
God is a concept for people who can't accept reality, or who need to feel important, or aren't smart enough to question
comforting lies.
clueless people
failed to be substantiated... shown to be the result of human illusion, delusion and misperception.
amputees prayed to get missing limbs back and haven't got them
Ask your god to eliminate all forms of cancer by mid-day tomorrow. We'll wait.
special snowflake!
Religion is a Form of Insanity
it is not grounded in reality, and being separated from reality is PSYCHOTIC BY DEFINITION, and leads to psychotic behavior
"delusion" is "a belief strongly held despite invalidating evidence." I'd say most religion falls into that category.
religion provides a haven for those who have difficulty accepting reality and prefer living in a make-believe world
While they may offend you or be snarky not a single one of those comments are an example of dogma. Not by my definition and certainly not by the definitions you posted. As an atheist there are only one or two statements that I would maybe even agree with.
If dogma meant snarky or offensive comments then I think every single individual would be guilty of it but under the current definitions of the word all your examples fail. Thanks for answering I do appreciate your doing it.
Indeed. Quite apart from some of those appearing to be taken out of context, they are impolite, disrespectful, accusatory, deprecating, polemic and debunking. They are also considered opinions, backed up by argument and very often (as I can recall) a response to poorly reasoned, blinkered and denialist theist posting.
They are all up for reasoned argument or rebuttal, but that's what we don't get. On the face of it 'calling "Dogma" as well as "Atheist fundamentalist" and 'atheism is illogical" is no worse than what Tzaph posted, but the bottom line is that our calls are generally justified and the accusations of theism are not only not justified but are wrongheaded.
Atheism has no Dogma, it is is rock solid logical. It has nothing to be Fundamentalist about. These stock accusations are simply more of theist inability to think logically or rationally, or even honestly.
"Dogma" has never been part of my language and lingo. I guess I won't be able to relate to this particular thread...
Quite understandable, if you never had Dogma imposed. I am commenting on responses, rather than responding, because while exposed to Dogma as kid, it never made an impression, so I was a lifetime atheist, pretty much.
I don't believe in the existence of Santa Claus. Am I being dogmatic?
Only if you have rites and rituals and say it is the only way to not believe in him...
and that this way was given to you by a supernatural being of your choice...
like Joseph Smith's spirit on the third Full Moon of the year.
Only if you have rites and rituals and say it is the only way to not believe in him...
and that this way was given to you by a supernatural being of your choice...
like Joseph Smith's spirit on the third Full Moon of the year.
What is the spirit on the third Full Moon?
What about being saved by Jesus and that's the only way to get to heaven?
you are aware that the word "dogma" as you use it in this thread topic is pejorative, aren't you?
that it has a very different feeling tone than "beliefs" or "opinions" or "spiritual path" or "religion" or "background" or "family of origin" or "dominant cultural beliefs" or "world view" or "paradigm" or "views" or "spiritual nourishment" or "inspiration" or "faith" or "spirituality" or "tenets" or "guiding principles"
There are various "dogmas" within Christianity. The central one is that Jesus died, but that he bodily arose again on the third day and that he represents the vehicle to salvation. This is the basic claim of Christianity, without belief in which one could scarcely be called a Christian.
I often allude to the claim that the corpse of Jesus return to life and subsequently flew away. Most Christians feel that this is a derogatory way of stating their belief. Jesus was "resurrected," and he "ascended to heaven." Which are really only two different ways of stating the same thing. Is it realistic to be dogmatic in the belief that Jesus was resurrected and that he subsequently ascended to heaven, and to be offended by the application of the description of Jesus as a corpse that returned to life and subsequently flew away? Or is there something just a bit rigidly pompous and forced in this whole idea of dogma? Forced in the sense that the entire claim of Christianity has to be viewed, and accepted, according to a very narrow officially established doctrine?
Indeed. Quite apart from some of those appearing to be taken out of context, they are impolite, disrespectful, accusatory, deprecating, polemic and debunking. They are also considered opinions, backed up by argument and very often (as I can recall) a response to poorly reasoned, blinkered and denialist theist posting.
They are all up for reasoned argument or rebuttal, but that's what we don't get. On the face of it 'calling "Dogma" as well as "Atheist fundamentalist" and 'atheism is illogical" is no worse than what Tzaph posted, but the bottom line is that our calls are generally justified and the accusations of theism are not only not justified but are wrongheaded.
Atheism has no Dogma, it is is rock solid logical. It has nothing to be Fundamentalist about. These stock accusations are simply more of theist inability to think logically or rationally, or even honestly.
Yes, atheists are dogmatic.
Yes, atheism has dogma. Dogma about people who are atheists, dogma about atheism, dogma about theists.
The post above gives us two more examples of dogma from atheists:
"our calls are generally justified and the accusations of theism are not only not justified but are wrongheaded"
"theist inability to think logically or rationally, or even honestly"
dog·mat·ic
adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true
dog·ma
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true
something held as an established opinion, a definite authoritative tenet
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.
