Is atheism a dogma?

[Vince Noir]

I do not diagree with the definition. For one hundreth time chaggy,

It is mpossible, even if one attempts to convince himself, to be entirely convinced of something that cannot be entirely proven, such as the existence of the supernatural. Hence it would have to be something of the sort of lack of complete understanding, a lack of the ability to be infallibly sure. In that sense it's merely a lack of belief as the atheist knows there is always, however small the possibility, a claim for the existence of god. This is an acommunist position and acommunism is not an ideology or dogma

Now, don't throw empty deinitions and concepts that have nothing to do with anything in this debate. Discuss.

[Chaigidel]

lol so you quote yourself?

I am not your nanny, I refuse to coddle you.

what you posted is empty definition and vapid concepts meant to help justify your equally vapid beliefs.

I have addressed those points you raised over and over again, and you ignore them; scroll up; read my statements again.

[Vince Noir]

lol so you quote yourself?

I am not your nanny, I refuse to coddle you.

what you posted is empty definition and vapid concepts meant to help justify your equally vapid beliefs.

I have addressed those points you raised over and over again, and you ignore them; scroll up; read my statements again.

I am not defining anything. You continue to ignore my argument and just repeat your usual one liners. Yes, in all seriousness I am going to quote myself again, as you ignored it and provided ZERO explanation other than that of your own definitions. Why should yours be right? Says who, you? Regardless I do not seek to even consider the definitions because then you just use your prejudice and spew drivvle about it not being the right deifinition. I am using logic. Which you just dodge and misquote. So again chaggy, try disprove:

1)Atheism is in the strictest sense a dogma if the atheist has a definite knowledge that god does not exist.

2)However atheists cannot know this. As men are imperfect, and god is that of the supernatural, then there is no infallible dedcution possible from an imperfect being that relates as evidence for or against the existance of god.

3)Thus it is impossible, even if one attempts to convince himself, to be entirely convinced of something that cannot be entirely proven. Hence it would have to be something of the sort of lack of complete understanding, a lack of the ability to be infallibly sure. In that sense it's merely a lack of belief as the atheist knows there is always, however small the possibility, a claim for the existence of god. This is an acommunist position and acommunism is not an ideology or dogma.

Do not through enigmatic one liners at me in attempt to ignore an throw the discussion of course. Ummon can pull them off but honestly, you really cant.

[Chaigidel]

yes stop quoting yourself I already addressed all these points, I refuse to do it again and again.

[Ummon]

Making excuses Mr. Noir. Atheism is a dogma whenever not asserted as an opinion and what you state there is not anyway related logically with this thread.

[Vince Noir]

Chaigidel. You havnt and you never could. Nice try though

Ummon. It has been a pleasure but as Theo stated earlier, it seems there will be a continous refusal to acknowledge anything other than your own opinion. I do not care for atheists, I was genuinly looking for an answer to this problem. It seems none can be given here...any point anyone makes is just disregarded as the wrong definition or the wrong logic.

[Ummon]

It's quite simple: when reasoning, reason correctly. The rest is called rhetoric. It convinces sometimes, but it never proves anything.

[Vince Noir]

Are men imperfect Ummon?

[Ummon]

Indeed: and some less than others. For example those who know their arguments about unknowable items are opinions...

[Vince Noir]

Indeed. In a sentence - can we irrefutably know if god exists or does not exist?

[Ummon]

No. Wasn't it about it all along?

That is why "I don't know" is the only logical stance.

[Vince Noir]

So can an imperfect being prove or disprove god? I assume you mean no.

So,

A man who refuses to believe in god cannot know by the very nature of "knowing". He does not "know" entirely. Albeit he can be very sure. Correct?

[Ummon]

An imperfect being can have logical, philosophical and scientific state of the art about things. When the state of the art changes, and through some magical unknown and unexplainable method, we will be able in the commonly held (and provable logically) opinion of specialists, to know God, we will assert it. Otherwise, the methods of our inquiry are rationally based on consensus, induction, deduction.

[Vince Noir]

Thus despite the atheist claiming to "know" god does not exist, the fact is they cannot, even if it is a subconcious refusal to admit it. Thus it is an acommunist positon by its own nature, which is not dogmatic.

[Ummon]

A negative conviction is just the same as a positive conviction, and the lack of belief is just the belief that something is not worthy to be believed. You should stop your reposting and go think about the inconsistency of your stance.

[Ragabash]

A negative conviction is just the same as a positive conviction, and the lack of belief is just the belief that something is not worthy to be believed.

That you refuse to believe in existance of God means also that you accept the consept as real or possible to some extent, more or less. Should your conviction be against the very consept of God rather than its outright existance it holds a very different ground. It's no longer disbelief on existance of God but on the reality of the whole consept. It's the very consept that is alien to most atheists, not existance of God.

Should you argue that every thing, decision etc. needs either belief or disbelief, refusal to accept it or total acceptance, the word looses its very meaning that has been applied to it. It then becomes a synonym for mere decision.

[black-dragon]

If atheism is a dogma, then so is acommunism. If acommunism is a dogma, then the word "dogma" effectively loses its meaning.

[Ummon]

Silly atheists. Acommunism doesn't exist. It is roughly translatable as the opinion that communism is not right. Because otherwise you would be a communist. As such an opinion or if asserted as more rational than the opposite without it being such (which is provable, because we are dealing with models and their effects) a dogma.

Sophistry for the support of persistent, but not very qualified, mental habits.

[Vince Noir]

Silly atheists. Acommunism doesn't exist. It is roughly translatable as the opinion that communism is not right. Because otherwise you would be a communist. As such an opinion or if asserted as more rational than the opposite without it being such (which is provable, because we are dealing with models and their effects) a dogma.

Sophistry for the support of persistent, but not very qualified, mental habits.

I am no atheist, far from.

You say acommunism does not exist? It does not?

[Ummon]

I am no atheist, far from.

Good, leaving the sinking boat.

You say acommunism does not exist? It does not?

Unless it is the name for the opinion that communism is wrong.