A problem with the word "atheist"

[Angrboda]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

No, a statement without evidence is simply unproven.  You need contrary evidence to make it invalid, which is something you are sorely lacking.
An unproven statement that is accepted or repeated as truth is merely a belief.  Nothing to do with dogma whatsoever.

And despite what the spittle you slurped from Sarkar's lips tells you, dogma is still "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" which doesn't describe an unproven belief, but does very accurately describe this bullshit definition of what dogma is that you have which was laid down by an authority (Sarkar) and which you treat as incontrovertibly true.  The same goes for your belief that by embracing Sarkar's spiritualist beliefs you have avoided dogma; that very sentiment was laid down by an authority (Sarkar, in his writings) and which you also treat as incontrovertibly true.

Contrary to your unproven belief that you are free of dogma, you are actually full to the brim with dogma.  But being the deluded crank you are, you'll simply deny the obvious.  Denying obvious reality doesn't make you clever or spiritual, it just means you're a deluded cunt.