are you an atheist?

I'm an agnostic. Atheism strikes me as just as much folly as blind belief and bears a whiff of hypocrisy in its rejection of dogmatism with more dogmatism.

And how is agnosticism any less dogmatic?

I don't necessarily think that atheism, by itself, is a "rejection of dogma" except to the extent that disbelief in deities entails simultaneously rejecting their associated rituals and what have you. People aren't atheists because they think the catechism or the Nicene Creed are bunk -- they're atheists because they don't believe gods exist.

At the same time, I'm not sure what's so dogmatic about saying, "Hey, on the available evidence, I'm pretty certain this Jehovah dude doesn't exist." Any more say than saying, "Hey, on the available evidence, I'm pretty sure objects attract each other with a force proportionate to their masses."

I know most of you hate Penn Jillette, and I only agree with him 50% of the time, but he did write something pretty great about being an atheist. To paraphrase, he said the not-believing-in-a-diety part is the cake walk... it's believing that humanity would benefit were it mostly atheist, and being ready to argue for that POV from all angles.

Yes, atheism is dogmatic. Any belief system is dogmatic.

And how is agnosticism any less dogmatic?

Good point. Maybe because I'm open to the possibility of being wrong?

I'm not sure what's so dogmatic about saying, "Hey, on the available evidence, I'm pretty certain this Jehovah dude doesn't exist."

The subtext of that statement, though, is, "I believe science trumps religion," which sounds pretty dogmatic.

why evoke science yet skip the science altogether in this thought process? these are the kinds of human-animal (as in we're crazy-advanced animals) behaviors that over millions of years of evolution have proven to be the best way to survive. do unto others as you would have them do unto you equals better chance for survival and better quality of life all around. why does any sort of higher power even need to be evoked?

it doesn't! this was pretty much the point of my post! i'm trying to show how the cognitive dissonance of religious belief vs rational-scientific-humanism would work, ie with extreme unease. you essentially would have a god saying 'leave me out of the picture, you've discovered a better way' or even 'this was the path i led you on over your history'. both are nutty. but at this stage religious belief is kind of nutty, if you think it all the way through.
nevertheless, i think a distinction between opinion and belief is helpful. i can not back up my belief by opinion, which should be rational and evidence-based.

I'm open to the possibility of being wrong too, but I'm still an atheist.

I'm an agnostic. Atheism strikes me as just as much folly as blind belief and bears a whiff of hypocrisy in its rejection of dogmatism with more dogmatism.

not believing in god is very different from blindly trusting christianity

How is atheism a "belief system?" Being an atheist doesn't necessarily imply anything else about what an individual believes about the way the universe works, despite its high correspondence with humanism, rationalism, etc. (I know atheists who are crazy woo-woo UFO & astrology freaks.)

I mean, what does "I am an atheist," by itself, tell you about a person in the same way that "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Seventh Day Adventist" does?

xpost The subtext of that statement, though, is, "I believe science trumps religion," which sounds pretty dogmatic.

Maybe, but I think there's more to it than that. It privileges evidence over . . . faith, I guess, which is a little more broad than "science trumps religion." (Which I think it does in terms of explaining How Stuff Works, but is irrelevant in terms of "what is dogma?" Is the theory of universal gravitation "dogmatic?"

xxpost Yep, it's a win win thing really

Science is by definition non- and even anti-dogmatic. People can cloak their dogma in scientific language, but that's not science.

I mean, what does "I am an atheist," by itself, tell you about a person in the same way that "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Seventh Day Adventist" does?

that he's right, obv ;-)

Maybe because I'm open to the possibility of being wrong?

So's anyone who's not stuffed with fluff -- but there I go being dogmatic again.

"I am an atheist" tells you as much about a person as "I am a theist" does

Problem with the Dawkins-style arguments are that they presuppose that scientific rationalism is the default position for evaluating the worth of all propositions. In other words, they're a scientific response to a religions argument.

And science and religion are not the same thing. They're two totally different ways of organizing truth and meaning. To dismiss religion from within the confines of a scientific construct is fine, but you have to accept that you're only speaking to/for other scientific thinkers.

By the same token, religious arguments against this or that scientific position (theory of evolution or whatever) may be convincing to members of the faithful, but they're essentially meaningless to scientific rationalists.

Now, I'm a scientific rationalist. I think god probably doesn't exist. It may be that some god-like something exists somewhere, but I don't see any good reason to suppose so. But, on the other hand, I'm not so intellectually arrogant to suppose that my way of conceptualizing reality/the universe is the ONLY valid way to do so. I'm willing to grant that there may be other avenues to the truth out there, and I'm perfectly happy to let people-who-are-not-me choose their own paths.

When they try to stick their grubby little god fingers in my social policy, I get pissed, but I don't see any point in calling them stupid or deluded. This is not "wishy-washy". It's an attempt to be as honest and as humble as possible about the limits of knowledge.

I mean, what does "I am an atheist," by itself, tell you about a person in the same way that "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Seventh Day Adventist" does?

You're biasing the answer by naming specific denominations. If your point is that there are lots of different kinds of atheists that are bound only by the fact that they don't believe in God, then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers (Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, voodoo spiritualists, etc.) that are bound only by the fact that they do. So what?

(Or what Curtis said.)

Curt1s otm. I voted no, because my opinion is 98% "I doubt it" and 2% "who gives a fuck." It just doesn't pass the "I don't believe in God" test.

Science is by definition non- and even anti-dogmatic.
-- kenan

sorry, FH. i misread you. major xp

kenan didn't write that quote above, but he does agree with it wholeheartedly.

Contenderizer way OTM.

(In both recent posts but especially the first.)

You're biasing the answer by naming specific denominations.

Fair enough.

If your point is that there are lots of different kinds of atheists that are bound only by the fact that they don't believe in God, then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers (Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, voodoo spiritualists, etc.) that are bound only by the fact that they do. So what?

Because if you're going to call atheism "dogmatic," you're going to have to point to what that dogma is. "God doesn't exist" isn't "dogma," unless we're reducing the definition to the point that any statement of opinion (or fact!) is "dogma." Which, in re this: "then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers . . . that are bound only by the fact that they do" ignores away that each of those groups DOES have dogma that's easily pointed to.

If the only dogma you can point to regarding atheism is "God doesn't exist," I think you're really reaching.

I mean, to say "atheism is just as dogmatic as religion" . . . you're either claiming that neither is particularly dogmatic, which is silly, as on a religion-by-religion basis there have been wars fought over this shit; or you're going to have to outline deeper dogma for atheism.

i like to make fun of religious people because i can. haha sorry i'm just kidding, i have a lot of religious friends.

science (as a social institution) is often intensely dogmatic.

No, science as a social institution is irrelevant. Social ain't got a thing to do with it. Science is too busy with biotech right now to chat much.

Now, science as a corporate institution that is just as subject to the whims of the economy and the good graces of those who pay their bunsen burner bills -- that's very worth considering.

just as subject as anyone, I guess I was going to say.

are people who think the Heaven's Gate cult held irrational beliefs also dogmatic?

To the people who contend that there's just enough doubt in their minds that they can't call themselves atheists - is this doubt just about the Christian god? How about Jehovah? Allah? Shiva? Zeus? Odin?

Ok maybe you're just open to the idea of "something else" and even though that's pretty wishy-washy, I am not completely closed to that idea (maybe 99.99% closed) - but for me that "something else" would be so far removed from any traditional conception of a deity that atheist is still the best description.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking, 1975

is it weird of me as an atheist to occasionally enjoy a good ritual/service? i've really really enjoyed some episcopal services. good stuff. i felt at peace, centered. very free of my mental burdens for a little bit. it was a beautiful thing to be a part of.

i grew up southern baptist, a group that was at least partly formed as a rejection of the more ritualistic denominations. of course they developed their own rituals to replace those they rejected. revisiting baptist services as an adult, i just find them ridiculous and crude. all art and beauty's been stripped. it's a real chore to sit through. truly lowest common denominator kinda shit.

my family is by and large a very faithful lot. several ministers (mostly baptist) in there, including my dad. i pretty much avoid this kinda talk with them. you have to pick your battles. and i would never try to convince them of anything. like their "walk with christ," it's a personal journey. they might think me a heathen, but so be it. they still love me.

no i'm the same way, i enjoy service.

there's a lot to a service besides the religion.

in threads like this it becomes clear very quickly that youre all using different dictionaries

^

Absolutely.

my science is too tight

xp For one, I'm using "dogma" interchangeably with "strongly held belief." Which is why I'm saying that atheists are as dogmatic as believers. Both strongly believe in their point of view. And that's why I thought that Mackro's rejoinder "how is agnosticism not dogmatic?" was a good question.

is it weird of me as an atheist to occasionally enjoy a good ritual/service?

Why would it be?

Also, from this thread it seems like a lot of people are on the same page in terms of their attitudes/beliefs, but some are more comfortable calling themselves atheists and some aren't. Personally I avoid the term because it does seem so absolute, and doesn't recognize the degree to which I am open to the possibility of the "something else" ledge mentions, even if such a thing is unlikely. It's sort of like how I can never imagine calling myself straight, despite dating a woman and being far more attracted to women than to men: it's just too limiting.

So, I'm a rather dogmatically rationalist atheist, but I really like gospel music.

I'm totally ok with the concept of atheism and all the supposed dogma it entails, I just want to self-apply the label for the same reason I don't get the word "Liberal" tattooed on my arm. Too Garofalo for my tastes.

No, science as a social institution is irrelevant. Social ain't got a thing to do with it. Science is too busy with biotech right now to chat much.
-- kenanYou seem to be joking to some extent or another, but I can't quite parse it. Biotech is hardly the only active scientific field at the moment. And science is social by nature (peer review, shared findings, competition). It's social in that it helps define the shared beliefs of all human societies, beliefs shared even by scientists themselves. And in that sense, science (scientific understandings, not the scientific method itself) can be dogmatic, hostile to threat or change.

I just DONT want to self-apply etc

keep doing that italics-instead-of-quotes thing

http://www.jxflagg.com/images/unicorn.jpg

xpost No, you're right.

But the idea of science in the popular imagibation or what have you is completely disconnected from what scientists actually do when they go to work every day, if only for the reason that most people don't and/or can't and/or won't understand it. So it's social in the confines of its own very insular community, but to the world at large, the curtain is drawn and wondrous objects magically appear from time to time. I can't even explain how a cathode ray tube works (in much detail), and that's a 50 year old product of science.

So you were saying "social institution" meaning "the insular scientific community," and I was thinking of it as a larger part of the social cloth, which, really, it isn't.

After years of dithering, it was a relief to just say, "I'm an atheist." I grew up in a moderately Catholic household and endured a Stephen Dedalus-esque moment of intense religiosity through most of my adolescence. I'm like Buñuel: I've too much of an atheist not to adore the ritual and romance.