Atheist Dogma?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Could someone explain to me what it is? I find the term somewhat confusing in this context. According to wikipedia:
dog·ma/ˈdôgmə/

Noun: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Stating that something is false isn't dogma.

[SLN445]

Just another attempt at lableing something incorrectly so it can be easier to attack.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Atheist Dogma: Evolution theory and the Big Bang. Among other theories like the theory of gravity.

[Basil II the B.S]

Atheist Dogma: Evolution theory and the Big Bang. Among other theories like the theory of gravity.

Rofl. No, not even close to be a dogma.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well thats Atheism dogmatic rules... other scientific theories.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Big bang: I have no idea. I don't know about others, but for me it sure as hell isn't atheist dogma.

Gravity: There's dogma, and there's common sense. No matter how many times you test it, it works. It's possible that there's undetectable ropes doing all the work, but that's even more complicated.

[Visna]

There is no atheist dogma. Even a scientific authority boldly proclaiming "God does not exist" is not a dogma in the dogmatic sense, as it's likely to be opposed by a fair number of atheists whose only common denominator is doubt or disbelief in the concept of God(s).

[Basil II the B.S]

Well thats Atheism dogmatic rules... other scientific theories.

There is no such a thing as an atheist authority pretending we should all agree without question about the Evolution theory or the Big Bang theory or whatever. That alone would exclude the possibility of ''Atheist dogma''.
But let's move further.
Atheists generally accept those theories, because they make more sense than anything anybody come up with so far, or there is some evidence about it.
And even this doesn't mean blind acceptance.
Everybody is free to question and come up with better explanations. If better explanations disproving evolution or whatever become available, I don't think any atheist would have any problem dropping those theories.
Therefore, saying that atheists have dogmas is utter nonsense and poor understanding of atheism.

[MathiasOfAthens]

There is no such a thing as an atheist authority pretending we should all agree without question about the Evolution theory or the Big Bang theory or whatever. That alone would exclude the possibility of ''Atheist dogma''.
But let's move further.
Atheists generally accept those theories, because they make more sense than anything anybody come up with so far, or there is some evidence about it.
And even this doesn't mean blind acceptance.
Everybody is free to question and come up with better explanations. If better explanations disproving evolution or whatever become available, I don't think any atheist would have any problem dropping those theories.
Therefore, saying that atheists have dogmas is utter nonsense and poor understanding of atheism.

I was pretty much kidding about the gravity bit but I am sure most evangelicals would consider Evolution and perhaps the Big Bang dogma to Atheists. Obviously I (an Atheists) dont consider it Dogma. I consider it Scientific fact.

[Basil II the B.S]

I was pretty much kidding about the gravity bit but I am sure most evangelicals would consider Evolution and perhaps the Big Bang dogma to Atheists. Obviously I (an Atheists) dont consider it Dogma. I consider it Scientific fact.

I don't expect evangelicals to understand atheists. If they were able to do such a thing, there wouldn't be any of them around.

[Col. Tartleton]

Evolution: An idea based on evidence.

Is it a "theory"? Yes. Does that mean it's fact? No. Has anyone come up with a more likely explanation based on the actual evidence? Not even close. So should we proceed with the notion that evolution is effectively right and that any needed changes will be made as necessary.

I'm not sure you can dogmatically believe in evolution unless you don't actually know what it is. Which a lot of people actually don't. So for those people it might resemble a dogma because they're taking it as such. It isn't, they're just dumb. These are the people who think that there is a personal choice between creationism and evolution. That's sort of like having a personal choice as to whether the sun goes around the earth or not (the not being something we ought to be embarrassed as a species we didn't conclude was possible or even likely sooner.)

Same with the Big Bang theory. Is it a theory? Yes. Is it fact? No. Has anyone come up with a better explanation that works as well? Nope. Thus we must take it seriously.

There is no Dogma of atheism. There might be a Dogma of Science, but it is simply that the Scientific method is the best method for the investigation of phenomena, acquiring of practical knowledge, and the practical employment of said knowledge.

[Kjertesvein]

ism - the philosophy.
ist - the person holding such theory.

Atheism is about negating a set of ethics, not the other way around. However, we are not talking about atheism, we are talking about atheist. Thus, as an atheist, one prescribe to some form of ethics (unless you count moral nihilism, correct me if I'm wrong): Humanist organisation, a pro-secular political party, etc. or some semi deviation of such active stance.

So to speak, such a statement as [sic] Atheist Dogma is delivered from the deist-worshippers who prescribe people from a stickt ego-centric point of view. "That man is not a believer of X, thus everything he do follows from the fact that he doesn't believe X." Thus I ask you, is it even worth debating with such obsession of belief, that he is intellectually incapable of raising his eyes above his own subjectivity, that one has to endure the tirade of non-sense? For what?

~Wille

[Ancient Aliens]

I disagree with most of the posters here in that atheists can adhere to dogma. When a person blindly adheres to a source of information without consideration for opposing viewpoints, this is dogmatic, and anyone can display this sort of behavior. Saying that atheists don't have a foundation for having dogmatic beliefs is incorrect as well; atheists can dogmatically adhere to an influential atheist, for example.

[Kjertesvein]

I disagree with most of the posters here in that atheists can adhere to dogma. When a person blindly adheres to a source of information without consideration for opposing viewpoints, this is dogmatic, and anyone can display this sort of behaviour. Saying that atheists don't have a foundation for having dogmatic beliefs is incorrect as well; atheists can dogmatically adhere to an influential atheist, for example.

Allow me to wrinkle out a few nitty details

Terminology
Atheist + Dogma = something coherent?

The terminology behind Atheist Dogma doesn't make a lot of sense seeing as the act of not comprehending information is universal, not relating to one's lack of belief in a deity, as you stated. I doubt that anyone here thinks that no person with a lack of belief can have the possibility of being dogmatic. What people are arguing against is that lacking belief somehow makes you dogmatic (to wards the belief in a deity?)

The proper wording would be that to be Atheist + Dogma relates to the act of Atheist's dogmatic nature. I.e. the person who hold the theory of atheism (or some deviation of atheism) inherently dogmatic.

~Wille

[Phier]

The closest thing to an atheist dogma would be..

Require proof.

But even that would not be universally correct.

[Hakkapeliitta]

The closest thing to an atheist dogma would be..

Require proof.

But even that would not be universally correct.

Sounds more like a 'skeptic' though.

There is no atheist dogma. The only requirement in order to be an atheist is the lack a belief in gods. If that's because you've looked at the arguments/evidence presented by theists, or if you've never heard of the concept or you lack the brain capacity to comprehend it, then it's all the same: your an atheist.

And evolution, science etc have nothing to do with atheism, nor does the lack of those, or martyrdom or salvation have anything to with theism. It just a question whether one believes in a God or not. What beliefs come after is always open.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Scientific theories are never dogma. Can be replaced at any moment and replaced by other one that explains data in a better way.

[Epicurean]

Scientific theories are never dogma. Can be replaced at any moment and replaced by other one that explains data in a better way.

These are my thoughts exactly.

Something like "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a kind of dogma. It is a kind of sensible dogma but it is a rule to abide with.

No, it isn't dogma as it isn't laid down by an authority, it's common sense and to those who adhere to it comes from themselves.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Scientific theories are never dogma. Can be replaced at any moment and replaced by other one that explains data in a better way.

The problem with science is that the one's making the scientific claims are the same who follow the procedure in falsifing them. Different forms of Science can and does become dogma because of external reasons, for example Historical Materialism in Soviet Russia.

[Helm]

Something like "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a kind of dogma. It is a kind of sensible dogma but it is a rule to abide with.