A problem with the word "atheist"

[Little Rik]

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.

Wrong once again yog.  

1) You just try to go to court with an unproven evidence.
It doesn't really matter whether somebody prove you wrong or not.
The other party can simply say........... NOT true your honor ...........and your unproven evidence is throw out of court and declared invalid.

2) The idea that a dogma can only come from an authority is pure crap.
Anybody can come up with a dogma.
Why only an authority?
Are you discriminating?
I would have thought that a feminist like you are the most anti-discrimination person around but again I was wrong yog.
You are a real disaster.