Atheism and dogma

[yourhopeboundheart]

if anything is emerging, Atheist Dogma is certainly not the term for it. i've been noticing similar trends, coalescing of atheists, skeptics, and agnostics tackling things that aren't directly involved with the question of god's existence. and it's been clear to me that if anyone is going to make this into something they are going to have to come up with a much better term, and a much better platform for organization.

i personally prefer a lack of organization and would rather the term atheism be left to precisely the definition. for political reasons it would be helpful to have a single cohesive unit with clear goals in order to battle the obviously well organized christian conservative side, but i dont exactly believe in fighting fire with fire.

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

biologists always look silly in philosopher outfits.
and hitchens is just very sassy, i'd rather listen to him than read him any day.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Atheism can be dogmatic when it is a reaction to religion.

That ain't atheism being dogmatic.....that's people.

 

[Atomist]

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.

Wikipedia:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.

Nope, it's not an established belief or doctrine and it's definitely not authoritative and can't be disputed doubted or diverged form...

To illustrate this... I as an atheist, I can meaingfully believe

1)Religion is not inherently evil (Say Buddhism)
2)Some religions are rational (say Buddhism)
3)The natural science approach can't all answer questions about the nature of being (say what is the meaning of life)
4)A lot of atheist are irrational (say they believe in astrology)
5) Atheist can believe in an afterlife (say reincarnation)
So...
/thread?

 

[no-body]

That ain't atheism being dogmatic.....that's people.

Blindly believing in something as a reaction rather than having well thought out reasons seems ironic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blindly believing in something as a reaction rather than having well thought out reasons seems ironic.

Atheists can blindly believe in things too. No group is immune to that fault. But atheism itself
has no personal characteristics, being a singular thing (a mere trait), ie, disbelief in gods.

 

[ninerbuff]

Atheist's do believe in something............it's called science.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

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.

Seeing as honing proper reasoning skills and critical thinking skills is neither an atheist only endeavour. And that there is such a thing as doing something the wrong and right way. None of that means that people like Hitchens and Dawkins are creating a dogma.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheist's do believe in something............it's called science.

That's popular, but not necessary to be an atheist.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Atheist's do believe in something............it's called science.

I don't "believe" in science. I have scientific knowledge. Not the same thing in the least.

And people should hardly be surprised at the idea of irrational, emotionally driven reactionary actions on the part of fellow atheists. Last I checked, when one concludes they are an atheist. A magical book does not drop from the sky to instruct us in proper use of logic, Reason,etc.

I try not to confuse zealousness. Either misguided or otherwise as dogma. And I also think greater organization of atheists is ultimately to a beneficial end. The advantages of organization outweigh the potential downsides in my opinion. Obviously this means things like wishing to avoid those pitfalls.

 

[TashaN]

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?

Good catch! You might be into something.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Good catch! You might be into something.

People often catch what they throw to themselves.

 

[dust1n]

This would be your loss.

Dawkins arguments for evolution are exceptional.

If that wasn't obvious beforehand.

 

[TashaN]

People often catch what they throw to themselves.

True, but not always.

 

[Atomist]

True, but not always.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.
... right...

Atheism is not dogmatic unless you redefine dogmatic into meaningless. No atheist would be called a heretic if they believed that religion is reasonable/does good things, there is something supernatural out there, etc.

but if you say something like what John Shelby Spong said
See: [youtube]5BkP9-HG8-I[/youtube]
YouTube - "The Church Doesn't Like the People to Grow Up."~ Bishop John Shelby Spong
You're deemed a heretic.

 

[gnostic]

I am agnostic, but I don't think of Huxley as my inspiration. And I have only read a few snippets here and there about agnosticism, articles that quoted from Huxley's works, but I actually haven't read any of Huxley's books.

About the only thing I admired most about Huxley, was that he changed the teaching direction in science, by forcing reforms in UK university, separating religion from science in university education.

I hardly consider my agnosticism to be dogma. And I feel that the atheists would feel the same way. I have a number of cousins, who never read books from either Dawkins or Hitchens, I doubt very much they understand or are interest in evolution or know much about Darwin. They don't follow any particular atheist.

 

[Willamena]

I don't "believe" in science. I have scientific knowledge. Not the same thing in the least.

You're right. I don't believe in that silly science stuff, either. Just simply "knowing" scientific stuff is much better.

Not like that's dogmatic.

 

[logician]

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?

Dawkins mainly writes about evolution, not religion. I doubt he is "widely read" by many people on that subject.

 

[Erebus]

Atheism has no more of a unified dogma than theism does. What you do get are certain groups in each category that develop dogmas. Certain Buddhists and LaVeyan Satanists are a couple of examples of atheists that follow dogmas.
What I suspect the OP is referring to are "New Atheists" who do indeed share similar ideologies outside of a lack of belief in a deity (such as, religion, superstition and fanaticism should be criticised and challenged) but I don't know if this could be considered a dogma yet. Still, considering new atheists are starting to hold events, have organisations, public faces (such as Dawkins) and share common ideologies outside of a lack of belief in a deity, it could be that shared dogmas aren't far off.

 

[Penumbra]

Yeah, some people turn stuff into dogma.

Atheism, though, is simply the lack of belief in gods. In some regions, many of those that fit within the definition of atheism also fit into the definition of a skeptic, where they don't believe things without evidence. But atheists aren't necessarily skeptics, and skeptics aren't necessarily atheists.

As for religion being inherently evil, people who suppose such things are making bad generalizations.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Both religion and atheist ideas share a common denominator in that humans are involved. Whenever humans are involved you will have those that bring rigor and aptitude enough to thoroughly understand what they are being exposed too.
My guess is the ratio of those that bring this needed rigor to either religion or any other ideology is a small fraction of the populace, and the majority end up spouting crap, or simply become a soundboard for something they really don't understand.