(October 12, 2015 at 10:32 am)Little Rik Wrote:(October 12, 2015 at 10:16 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Here you go, you disingenuous twit:
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
That is not a bad explanation but why should it be laid down by an authority only?
Anybody can create dogmas but something is missing anyway.
What is missing is that this so called truth come without evidence therefore can not be the truth UNTIL
evidence is shown that is why the atheists statements that are not followed by solid evidence can not be considered the truth and a statement without evidence land in the corral of dogmas.
There is no other place to be.
No, I'd say the definition I gave covers the meaning of "dogma". The point is that a principle is declared by a putative authority as incontrovertibly true -- i.e., declared to be true and a required belief to be accepted without supporting evidence.
People's opinions about consciousness arising from the brain, for example, do not satisfy the conditions of being dogmas because (1) they are not offered as authoritative, (2) they are not offered as incontrovertibly true, and (3) they are subject to revision pending further evidence that would disconfirm the claim.