How atheists can still believe in God?

[Confused Ape]

Have to disagree there: a 7 would be an absolute anti-theist whereas a dogmatic atheist would be someone who follows the dogma of atheism.

Definition of Dogmatic

expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted

characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>

Since there is no dogma, there can be no adherence therefore dogmatic atheism doesn't exist.

Atheism doesn't have any dogma but that doesn't mean that some atheists can't be dogmatic according to the above definition. For me, the term "dogmatic atheism" means people claiming that they know for a fact that nobody's definition of God is right.

There are people who follow the positions of particular authorities so maybe there's a kernal of future dogma there

The thought of 'Atheism The Ideology' makes me shudder. Is it at all possible that something like this could develop? I don't know much about Atheism+ but there are some interesting posts about it in the forum topic - Atheism+ and similar ideologies. I then found an internet article by someone who wasn't thrilled with the Atheist+ movement - What Atheism Could Have Been. The Atheism+ movement isn't about atheism itself, though. It's how atheists 'should and ought to' take a stand on certain issues.

but I think that's more to do with modern celebrity worship than the religious-style blind following that the word 'dogma' implies.

The way I see it, the human tendency for hero/celebrity worship is a dangerous weakness because it can be manipulated into a Cult Of Personality. I honestly can't see that happening with atheism but it doesn't have to. All it needs is a few vocal atheists following "the positions of particular authorities" to create a bad impression.

It's not entirely impossible however I'd phrase this the other way round: given how many obviously impossible/implausible definitions of god exist, isn't it more likely that they're all wrong?

It's very likely that they're all wrong. This includes the God Of Quantum Woo even though some of the people promoting it have degrees in physics.

I forget which university hospital did it but the areas of the brain which equated to 'religious experience' were mapped and compared to scans of other brains during 'reportedly similar' non-religious experiences.

I tried googling for 'brain mapping religious and non religious experiences' and got various results - it would be helpful if you could find the relevant information because you'll recognise it when you see it. I'm particularly interested in what the 'reportedly similar non-religious experiences' are. I was a teenager in the 60's so remember Beatlemania even though I could never get that excited over the Beatles.





Maybe that's not very different to religious hysteria.

True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.

Was this in the same study?

Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.

And this?