Arguing with friend on whether we're cult-like

[leo-rcc]

As for repeating what other atheists said before, it is not dogmatic if it is accurate.

That's what i said but then I tried to find a dictionary definition of dogma to back it up and couldn't find one that said dogma had to be unsubstantiated to qualify as dogma.

Well lets look at that shall we?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

This is the important part.

If what is being repeated is demonstrated to be false, it is someting that rational people will drop like a hot potato and move on. Repeating the same thing over and over despite it being false is dogmatic, specially if it is pointed out to you.

---

But if your definition of atheist is "anyone who isn't theist" then it's true. That's the definition I use, being an atheist doesn't require rejection or understanding. I agree babies aren't explicit atheists, but they are implicit atheists because they don't explicitly hold the theist view point and are not theists.

Sure, but that is not a valid argument in favour of atheism as it is so often used.