Atheism and dogma

[sandandfoam]

My first reaction to a statement of atheism is that it indicates an individual lacks of belief in god(s). Nothing more. I understand that to be the position of many (or most?) atheists who post here.
On the other hand there seems to be a share of threads where the opinion is expressed that atheists believe this or atheists believe that.
I was wondering - is there a dogma emerging? perhaps rooted in the work of widely read authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens?

 

[HonestJoe]

I was wondering - is there a dogma emerging? perhaps rooted in the work of widely read authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens?

I'd say not just a dogma and not just emerging.
Atheism is pretty much meaningless on it's own and individuals have a set of personal beliefs, opinions and viewpoints of which that is just one part.

This is exactly like theism in fact, the key difference being that while it is expected that different theists can and will have widely varying individual positions, all atheists are often expected/assumed to be of one mind on everything.

 

[Looncall]

My first reaction to a statement of atheism is that it indicates an individual lacks of belief in god(s). Nothing more. I understand that to be the position of many (or most?) atheists who post here.
On the other hand there seems to be a share of threads where the opinion is expressed that atheists believe this or atheists believe that.
I was wondering - is there a dogma emerging? perhaps rooted in the work of widely read authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens?

May we see some examples of these and those?

 

[Noaidi]

Can there be a dogma for a lack of belief in gods? Do we all have a dogma regarding our lack of belief in invisible unicorns too?

Atheism can present an argument or a justification for lack of theistic belief, but there are no rules or prescriptions regarding how atheists should live their lives. In this sense, it differs from dogma (being an atheist, I'm bound to say that, though...)

 

[sandandfoam]

May we see some examples of these and those?

Sure
Examples of threads/posts I'm talking about include:-
1.Religion is inherently evil
2.The religious are irrational
3.The natural science approach can answer questions about the nature of being
4.Atheists are rational
5.Atheists don't believe in life after death

..that type of thing.

 

[sandandfoam]

Can there be a dogma for a lack of belief in gods? Do we all have a dogma regarding our lack of belief in invisible unicorns too?

Atheism can present an argument or a justification for lack of theistic belief, but there are no rules or prescriptions regarding how atheists should live their lives. In this sense, it differs from dogma (being an atheist, I'm bound to say that, though...)

I understand that to be the position of many (or most?) atheists who post here.

Your position makes sense to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure
Examples of threads/posts I'm talking about include:-
1.Religion is inherently evil
2.The religious are irrational
3.The natural science approach can answer questions about the nature of being
4.Atheists are rational
5.Atheists don't believe in life after death

..that type of thing.

That is not dogma. It is ideology. It may be just as silly, but the approach is different.

 

[linwood]

That is not dogma. It is ideology. It may be just as silly, but the approach is different.

Agreed but all dogma begins as ideology.

That`s the part that worries me.

Stephen has a point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our dogma:
1) We don't believe in gods.
2) See #1

 

[Willamena]

I was wondering - is there a dogma emerging? perhaps rooted in the work of widely read authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens?

As soon as "atheism" becomes a thing that needs support in funding, organizations, publications, and social groups, it has become dogmatized. Atheism's dogma "emerged" a couple centuries ago, with the avent of the "free-thinkers."

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Sorry but I don't consider what Dawkins and Hitchens,etc do to be the formation of a dogma. Just because they don't back down from playing nice with religion all the time means they are creating a dogma. If they start doing stuff like advocate atheist suicide bombers, the killing abortion doctors for atheism or fly planes into buildings. Then I'll worry they have started to form a dogma.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dawkins & Hitchens are just guys who expound on what they believe.
They don't represent us any more than I represent us.
We're as leaderless as a herd of house cats.

 

[linwood]

Sorry but I don't consider what Dawkins and Hitchens,etc do to be the formation of a dogma. Just because they don't back down from playing nice with religion all the time means they are creating a dogma. If they start doing stuff like advocate atheist suicide bombers, the killing abortion doctors for atheism or fly planes into buildings. Then I'll worry they have started to form a dogma.

Dogma is always a "bad" thing yet dogma doesn`t necessarily need be "bad" to be dogma.

Informing atheists of the"correct" way to think, act, believe is indeed creating dogma or at least ideology.

 

[linwood]

We're as leaderless as a herd of house cats.

Herding cats is easy.

You just need an electric can opener.

Anything can be "herded" if the right tune is played.

 

[dust1n]

Neither Dawkins or Hitchens is quite prepared to write anything that I would ever need to read.

 

[no-body]

I'm sure there are certain people out there who would like to organize Atheism more and create organizations but they don't represent the whole.

I think Atheism can be dogmatic when it is a reaction to religion. If you're a young person who's just read Nietzsche and want to **** off religious mommy and daddy, I think that is a bad reason to be an atheist.

A well thought out reason for non-believe I can respect. But that goes for all sides theistic or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

My first reaction to a statement of atheism is that it indicates an individual lacks of belief in god(s). Nothing more. I understand that to be the position of many (or most?) atheists who post here.
On the other hand there seems to be a share of threads where the opinion is expressed that atheists believe this or atheists believe that.
I was wondering - is there a dogma emerging? perhaps rooted in the work of widely read authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens?

In theory no, since atheists are defined by what they are not it would be like asking if there is a non-blonde dogma.

In practice there may be a kernel of truth to that as some atheists read more about metaphysical stances from the same sources.

Personally I'm not happy with the popularity of Dawkins -- a sophomoric philosopher at best. I've admittedly never read Hitchens.

In any case I think the boldest statement that can reasonably be made is that many atheists share a common foundation -- but that's not because they are atheists; atheism in this case is a symptom and not a cause. Many atheists have the same ideas about skepticism to religion (and therefore gods) because they share a generally skeptical epistemology. Thus you'll see a lot of atheists agree on certain things because they're coming from the same epistemic background -- but that's not saying much, really

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anything that could be construed as an atheist dogma seems to be primarily defined by theists.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually if you really think about it the source of all disagreements is epistemic. Well, nearly all (i.e. someone could have been exposed to evidence that someone else wasn't which can't be repeated for that person, causing a difference).

If you have two people that agree 100% epistemically and they share 100% of the same evidence they will most likely agree on the same ontologies. The beliefs themselves (or lack of beliefs) end up just being symptoms of deeper roots: that of how rigorous our epistemology is and how properly we justify beliefs.

There's a problem with lack of proper justification (which leads to superstitions for instance) and there's also universal skepticism (which is self-refuting).

 

[linwood]

Neither Dawkins or Hitchens is quite prepared to write anything that I would ever need to read.

This would be your loss.

Dawkins arguments for evolution are exceptional.

I agree he fails as a philosopher but his scientific writings are gold for the layman.