Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

I don't think dogma is limited to being static.Religions have changed much over the years, while some have stayed the same. Religion has had to adapt to our changing society.And I don't see how you are making a connection between science and atheism. We have discussed here a true scientist would be agnostic.I think being agnostic is not a belief, because you are unsure what to believe in, or open to any viable suggestions.

Just to be clear, I am not making that notion.But I am saying that school doesn't leave you with much else to believe in. They certainly do not give God a fair chance, and if they did, it would be against our constitution.Our logical decsions we make about life are based on what we know.

I'm beginning to wonder if we are using one and the same definition of the word 'dogma'.A dogma is not inherently false. It's just a position taken on something without question. It might be true, or it might not.If I say "The earth orbits the sun, and there's nothing anybody can say to convince me otherwise", then that is expressing a dogmatic view. The fact that the earth actually does orbit the sun doesn't change the dogmatic character of that view.Ohnhai's preparedness to alter his or her viewpoint in the face of new evidence is antithesis to a dogmatic stance.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No, I am backing up what I originally acerted is a "true atheist". One who has never heard of God, or does not inherently feel one exists.A default position can only be attained when we reach theory of mind?
I'll agree with that, since I can't prove anything else. It is irrelevant to the conversation. Not being able to believe doesn't make you an atheist.

Well I've always associated dogma with religion. Religion seems to be man's interpretation of the truth. Doesn't seem to matter what the truth actually is.Those religious views have had to change over the years. Maybe not at the same rate that science changes, but it does change. This has no bearing on what the truth actually is.I look at scienc the same way. Right now we see things a certain way. It has no bearing what the truth of those things actually is. We just have theories. Theory is like a religion.The difference is most scientist will tell you theories can change, and most religious people will tell you that their religion won't change. But not all.I belong to a religion that is willing to change to meet the needs of our society, but very carefully. It's not science, and your dealing with peoples feelings, not test tubes.
(you get the picture?)

I get the picture (I'm sorry if that phrase ticked you off). I think I agree with all of what you said there (in message 260), except the bit about theory being like religion. It seems we are using the same definition of dogma after all. Phew.

If you want to college to study economics or media theory - why would such a course "give god a fair chance"?What would role would god play in such a course?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The difference is most scientist will tell you theories can change, and most religious people will tell you that their religion won't change. But not all.

​

I belong to a religion that is willing to change to meet the needs of our society, but very carefully.

---

When was the last time your central textbook was updated to reflect a better understanding of the world ?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Yup, you read the signs correctly, ambiguous as they were--I should have prefaced those remarks with a "quite" or an "exactly."How could you imagine that I would disagree with you, Parasomnium? Have I ever?Well, maybe once or twice on the subject of smilies...

I'm sorry, I don't know what got into me. How could I ever have doubted you?

Why not? Not being able to believe in any deity means you do not believe in a diety, which is the definiton of the word 'a-theist'.

Well not in most cases, but it is possible.If I were to share our core set of relational values with you from our church, you would find a set of rules that are based on our best interpretation of the bible and made from love. Every year we review them, to see if they are working. If we find something wrong with one of the rules, then we can change it. Not unlike changing a variable within a theory. They are always under scrutiny and subject to change.

Not being able to believe, means just that.Dictionary.com has the definition of atheist as this:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.You can't disbelieve if you can't believe.
You could be neither a theist, or an atheist.

This would only apply for those who take the bible literally. Which I have deemed impossible, since we don't have the original translation.One of the things that used to preplex me about the bible, is all the translations. But now I think it is neccessary as one greek word can have many meanings, hence all the translations.Add that thought to this one: Many people can read the same line in the bible, and it can mean something different to them.But the bible is always being updated with new versions to match the language. Hopefully the message is not lost, but our interpretation can change. But even the bible is dogma, only Jesus was truth, and the bible is the only thing we have to go on. If you can prove to me that Jesus wasn't truth, then I may change my mind, and call myself crazy.

riverrat: Selective memory rightheres the first part that I answered to about programming I answered: Your question implies those around me there is no mention of collegenot into later did you stateprogramming with college!Plus you evaded yet another question try toanswer if you can;who do you think programmed meSo you either qoute-mine yourself to better yourposition. Or you just don't remember what you type.NowThis was rhe first of your attacks on me. I have yet to point out anyword that you misspelled. Way of topic son. Its about atheist beliefs Already did in post 213 now you prove I'm wrong!Lets recap; You failed to understand how this was prejudiced This is called a predetermined stereo-type.You concede the point byevading it,thank youyou evaded thisyou evadedI'll take your evasion as a concessionnext: So your conceding that only you and manson have belittled christianitywith the little gods statement. Thank younext: I asked Are you a true atheist or just talking toyourself in the mirrorYou evaded this one too.You concede to satements of no knowledge.thankyou. message one message 191 Seems like you need anger management classes.so full of hate. What would jesus say? Now you concede that I have not wondered about god. Thankl you your responseAnother evasion!message 191message 191Wow what astatement of envy.you really do need help>Unable to fathomhow Someone with ideas can be far happier in life then he could everbe. Maybe one day you will grow up and loss all your anger.Oh and byyour own words you are not a loving caring christian. Just a lostyoung man who still is looking for his path.maybe someday you willyou someday find!peace?