Atheists are not dogmatic. They are anti dogma. Dogma is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
What you mean to say is that atheists aren’t supposed to be dogmatic. Sometimes some are in their assumptions about science, which is counterproductive.
McCreason - 25 March 2009 07:37 PM
Atheists have adequate grounds for their view because it is based on scientific methods and reason. Thus their view is not dogmatic.
What you mean to say here is that their view shouldn’t be dogmatic. Sometimes it is, because they make assumptions that are not backed by science. If you need examples I can go fetch them from another thread. Or start a new one…
McCreason - 25 March 2009 07:37 PM
And sure, if you absolutely must find a way to divide atheists, you can call them productive and counter productive, Asian and Caucasian, educated and noneducated, male and female or whatever….but does any of that really matter?
It’s not about dividing atheists, in this case it’s about confronting unhealthy dogmatic behavior, and finding appropriate labels to identify it as such.
McCreason - 25 March 2009 07:37 PM
Gets kind of silly doesn’t it?
Only when people start talking about things like ‘new atheism.’ Then it starts to get silly; sounds kind of like a combination of new age and atheism.
‘Sometimes some are in their assumptions about science, which is counterproductive.’
Just what are assumptions about science?
Do you think science is about assumptions? What kind of a scientist makes assumptions that are not backed up by evidence, testing and falsification?
Science does make predictions. Thats part of science. Those predictions are based on models that are constructive with evidence.
Why do we need a new thread? There has been very little new actually said here already.
There are also counterproductive atheists, just as there are productive ones, in terms of how they represent atheism. Wouldn’t you agree?
There is no poster child for Atheism. It’s like VD ... “VD is for everybody, not for just a few. Anyone can get VD, even someone nice as you.” You don’t need to be born again or saved, you just need to come to your senses.
While I have acknowledged atheists are anti-doctrine, I can’t agree that some of them aren’t dogmatic at times. Jefe pointed this out earlier, and I agreed with him.
McCreason - 16 March 2009 02:24 PM
There are activist atheists and passive atheists. Thats about it.
There are also counterproductive atheists, just as there are productive ones, in terms of how they represent atheism. Wouldn’t you agree?
(Warning: Sarcasm is contained in this post. It may not be appropriate for all audiences.)
Oh my god! Atheists are imperfect individuals with varying points of view! Who’d have thunk it? This cannot be allowed! No independent thought, ya’ll! You must be open minded and accept the possibility of magic! Please IS, lead us to the promised land. Provide our manna. Private Scotty stands at attention, sir or madam!
Theism is based on supernaturalism. 10,000 religions based on supernaturalism since the last ice age. Each a belief system based on their own specific doctrine and dogma. Thus for all of them to exist, they must be fundamental about their beliefs to provide separation from other beliefs.
Atheism is based on naturalism. How many doctrines and dogmas of naturalism are there? Yeah, one. The doctrine of reason. Atheists may be referred to as fundamentalist, but we are only fundamentally sensible.
for the woo boys to feel better to lable us as fundamental actually does them no good.
I have to agree with IS on this one. Being dogmatic is not something that is only associated with religion, it is a human disease that anybody can catch, in fact most do in one form or another. My distinction is between somebody who proclaims their belief about something is absolutely true and somebody who acknowledges that while it may be a reasonable and well thought out position there is always room for other possibilities. And I disagree with the claim that atheism is not a belief—it’s like metaphysics, even denying that metaphysics is important is a metaphysical position. Saying that one doesn’t accept any claim about anything supernatural is different from saying that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Some atheists here say the former, some the latter.
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
burt
So, if atheists base their opinions of naturalism on the discoveries of science, vetted by the scientific method, are those opinions without adequate grounds? According to this definition they would have to be so to be considered to be dogmatic.
Dogma seems to be reserved for strong opinions on things that are not based on anything tangible. That is pretty much the opposite of scientific discovery and naturalistic atheistic opinion.
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
burt
So, if atheists base their opinions of naturalism on the discoveries of science, vetted by the scientific method, are those opinions without adequate grounds? According to this definition they would have to be so to be considered to be dogmatic.
Dogma seems to be reserved for strong opinions on things that are not based on anything tangible. That is pretty much the opposite of scientific discovery and naturalistic atheistic opinion.
Well, we’re picking nits now. Certainly naturalism, current scientific knowledge, etc., are adequate grounds for a belief, but if somebody then asserts that belief as absolute truth rather than simply a well supported opinion then I would say they are being dogmatic. In other words, for me dogmatism isn’t so much what the opinion is based on as it is the rigidity with which it is held. If a staunch Catholic says that they believe in virgin birth, and so on but admit that they could be wrong then as I see it, that isn’t particularly dogmatic (maybe misguided, but that’s another question) while if an atheist says that he/she is absolutely certain that nothing supernatural exists and there is no way they could ever be convinced otherwise and anybody who disagrees with them is obviously a fuckwit then I see that as dogmatic. Maybe we need another word, though.
‘but if somebody then asserts that belief as absolute truth rather than simply a well supported opinion then I would say they are being dogmatic’
Know any scientists that talks about absolute truths?
Thats what theologians talk about.
Again, atheists that base their disbelief system on scientifc discoveries, cannot be dogmatic, even by your standard.
I am fighting hard for this one, are you going to let me win, even if it is picking nits?
No, but I think we’re talking about different things. Basing disbelief on scientific discoveries is one thing, insisting that this is 100% correct is another. It’s the difference between saying: (1) Since there is no scientific evidence for anything supernatural I choose to believe that no such stuff exists, it’s all fantasy; but since science keeps evolving, I’m willing to change this opinion if evidence ever shows up; and (2) Since there is no scientific evidence for anything supernatural, it doesn’t exist, there is nothing that could ever convince me otherwise, and anybody who says otherwise is a deluded fuckwit.
