Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Little Rik]

@ Little Rik

I thought you might chicken out. Just because I can act immature when I want to doesn't mean I'm not capable of being mature. The main thing is to know the fucking difference.

I consider immature those people that dream to have grasped the prize well
before they can put their hands on it.
Does it sound familiar Ev?  

[Homeless Nutter]

Dogma - mother of dogs.

[Cato]

Dogma visual aide:

---

---

[Little Rik]

You seem to be an expert in dogmas Rob.  
Can you please help Little Rik by explaining him what a dogma is?  

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.  

[Crossless2.0]

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.

[robvalue]

I think everyone has given good definitions of dogma here.

[Angrboda]

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.

It sounds more like it's describing the opinion of a guru like PR Sarkar. Got any evidence that his opinions on how the system works are true? No, you don't. You've admitted as much.

[drfuzzy]

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.  

What?  
What does that gobbledygook of an attempt at a sentence say?

I THINK he might be trying the old "I can't prove my assertions, but YOU can't prove consciousness exists without a body either, so na-na-na-na-na poopy head".

That's exactly IT, though.  We need scientific proof to consider a claim.  You don't need proof.  We are at an impasse until proof is given.   Until you have measurable proof, we cannot accept your assertions of non-corporeal intelligence.

[robvalue]

You can be your own authority and lay down dogma on yourself, I suppose.

I think this can happen without people realising it, which is why it's so important to check your own thinking for errors regularly.

[Little Rik]

Let us focus on the original Greek meaning.
The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine"
So this has really nothing to do with......... A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.
As i said yesterday anybody can create a dogma if we stick with the original Greek meaning and also doesn't mean that the believes should be incontrovertibly true.
It is just an opinion that born in the imagination of someone and come with no evidence.
Now as far as this opinion stay in the mind of the one who originate this idea is ok or it is bad only for the one who create this idea but as soon as it is spread around and affect other people for the worse then it create a problem.
Human nature is a constant quest for mental expansion so when one is expected to accept the idea without question it create a problem as the mental expansion is checked.
But let us go back to my point in which i said that atheism is based on dogma.
After having read countless of times in different threads of this forum that ..........

..........the consciousness is a product of the brain.
..........with the physical death everything is over.
..........our consciousness come thanks to previous generations..........and so on.

i have to come to the conclusion that constantly repeating these mantras which are not backed up by solid evidence create a check or a block in the mind and not only in the mind of the one who originate the thought but also in the mind of anyone who follow these thoughts.

Sarkar said............
.....Dogma is an idea with a rigid boundary line, which won’t allow you to go beyond the periphery of that boundary line. Thus dogma goes against the fundamental spirit of the human mind. The human mind won’t tolerate anything rigid. It wants movement – not only movement, but accelerated movement. Humans want unbarred psychic progress, intellectual progress, without obstacles.