But I was just told by another member that dogma does not exist within the atheist community.

We aren't going to hell if we disagree with him.

If you really don't see the difference between religion and atheism as it applies to dogma, then I need to change a lot of the things I've thought about you.

It is not the first time that atheism has claimed it.

dogma?

And outside of basically defining his atheism, how are these generalities dogma?

doctrine is dogma. Pretty simple really.

Do you not see all the "I believes"? Do you not understand the simple idea that he is speaking for himself and NOT laying out a dogma that all atheist need to follow.

Nice try at snark, but you missed by a mile.

and some do.

The point is that dogma does exist within the atheist community. That does not mean that all atheists are dogmatic or embrace dogma.

The same can be said for some religions and believers, but not all.

Why this would be hard to recognize and is met with so much rejection is difficult to understand.

When the statement is made that non-believers have abandoned dogma, what is wrong with pointing out that that simply is not true. It is some of the dogmatic leadership that is causing some problems for others, just as it is with religious communities.

of Dogma.

I did not know that sharing ideas and asking others to consider them was dogma.


Outside of the statements about there being no God and the naturalistic view of the Universe, which is pretty much the definition of atheism rather than a dogma, the rest seem to be more tenets of secularism or humanism. If you want to have dogma and tenets interchangeable, than those are "dogma', but not of atheism.

They share ideas and ask others to consider them. They provide definitions for who they are and tenets about what they believe.

The position I object to is this:

Religion = dogma

Atheism = no dogma

It's simply not true as an absolute.

but I never said or felt that all religious people are dogmatic.

This is a little strawmany for me.

Could you tell me what you think is a dogma held by some atheist so I can understand what you mean by atheist dogma?

Much of what Hitchens and Dawkins say is dogmatic.

The problem may be that it doesn't look like dogma if it is in line with what you personally believe, but only when it is not.

is anything any individual believes?

It can be religious or not.

Do you not see any dogma within certain segments of organized atheism? Is it possible to have organized groups within an ideological framework without dogma?

sure. I think we have fallen into the hole of semantics.

I just don't see one man stating his beliefs as dogma.

I know it is thin ice to criticize a marginalized group, but it is also thin ice to hold that group up as faultless.

I am generally supportive of the basic goals of organized atheist and secular groups - separation issues and discrimination against non-believers. I think these organizations will be needed to further these goals and I also think that collations with non-secular groups will be important.

This is why I am concerned about reports of bias or discrimination within the groups and particularly about anti-theists who I find as dogmatic as the religious right in many cases.

At any rate, I think we can proceed with identifying and addressing the internal problems in a way that furthers the cause, not damages it.

This particular creed is not official, held by a group, or settled opinion. It's what a philosopher wrote in a book.

and adoption.

How many have or will follow his lead is not clear, but I see an awful lot of *creed* from other authors and leaders within the movement which are taken as *gospel*, and to me, that is dogma.

that hold religious beliefs are stupid or delusional, and it is stated with authority, that's dogmatic.

It's an assumption that they have the truth and that there are no other truths to be had.

Not everyone takes that position, but those that do are dogmatic, imo. It's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the staunch position that there is a truth and they have it.

I object to that from believers and non-believers alike. Fortunately, most from either group don't take that position.

section of the Nicene Creed? Glad to know that it's not laying out a dogma that all Christians need to follow.

I don't get it.

And there are theists that post in the atheist forum.

And do we REALLY need to go down the path of why atheists post in here?

I asked how many. However it does appear to be substantially fewer than vice versa.

"And do we REALLY need to go down the path of why atheists post in here?" Personally I couldn't care less. But if you feel like tippy toeing down the path, by all means feel free to do so.

BTW, I have no doubt that atheist dogma exists for some atheists.

Just the notion that everything was created in its present form in 6 days.

I know there are believers who accept evolution. The RCC for example.

He knew there was going to be blowback, but he maintained that his theory and religious beliefs were not mutually exclusive. This is the position held by many believers.

but the fact is his theory made it possible to remove God from the equation for life.

but his opinions on God are not material here. What we have learned because of his theory are what is relevant. I could easily argue that if he were alive today and saw the research and results his theory has brought about he would see that there is simply no need for a God or diety in the explanation of life. Darwin 1850 not completely agree, but his theory does.

His theory in no way rules out the possibility of a god. While it explains many things that were previously explained by religious concepts, his theories merely opened more doors in terms of seeing that there could be so much more.

I, for one, have trouble believing that we are the most highly evolved beings in the universe. That seems very improbable to me. Does that mean there is a god or gods? I don't know, but evolution in no way rules that out.

it provides a framework that make God unnecessary in the development of life. In biology there is no need to have God even be a question. He is irrelevant.
Occam's razor and all.

I extrapolate to modern biologists. And as I said it is what his theory says more than what he believes 160 years ago.

For others, who may see spirituality and other human features as not explained by evolution, it doesn't make god irrelevant at all.

It's not just about biology. And Darwin knew that.

I may not interpret them exactly as he meant them, but that is my takeaway.

this about this part of the post:

The Atheist’s Primer reinstates the importance of philosophy in the debate about God’s existence. The ‘new atheism’ of Richard Dawkins and others has been driven by largely Darwinian objections to God’s existence, limiting the debate to a principally scientific framework.

You can argue for God's existence or not, but Darwinian evolution is a cogent argument against the traditional reasons for him. Simply, there is no evidence for God's existence and Darwin is a big part of that.

The author here is stating that there are, and have been for millennium, philosophical reasons to doubt the existence of God.

Darwin's beliefs in 1850 are irrelevant.

He knew that and struggled with it. IIRC, and this would be from college, it tormented him to the point of considering suicide or withholding his findings.

But in the end, he personally found a compromise, as I see it. It's relevant to me because it is a compromise that many have made.

Now, we must prepare to move to a new harbor.

Catch you later.

was to basically be a nonbeliever.
He looked at the biological world and decided that, in the face of great evidence, he could no longer believe. I do not see this as a compromise.

And he said pretty clearly that he did not think his theories excluded or eliminated god.

each with its own means of investigation and evaluation.

Just personally, I think this benefits both fields.

stays out of science and reality.

I am fine with that.

"Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumption and dreams, a superstructure without a substructure."

Cue the butthurt Sophisticated Theologians in 5, 4, 3...

Now we not only have requests atheist chaplains in the armed forces, we have atheist seances.

Show me to the nearest fainting couch.