Let's get personal:

My dogma is the stuff you have to already assent to to even make sense what I'm saying. The disbeliefs you have to suspend.

What's yours?

Some people's dogma seems to be that only the other chap has dogma.

Would you count the convictions that you know you hold as opinion or knowledge? — Moliere

I count them as convictions. This a separate class of mind-content from either opinion or knowledge: it is far more complex than any single instance of either opinion or knowledge; built over time from facts, experience, learning, examples seen and read, results of actions witnessed, emotional responses, opinion, reasoning and evaluation, it become part of one's moral structure, which then guides one's actions. If the convictions are inconsistent, so is the behaviour.

I don't particularly care about religion - though I find it very interesting, I don't much mind who believes in it, which one or how sincerely. I mind when religious beliefs impinge on the secular legislation that limits my freedom. It plays only a marginal role in my life, since I don't live in a theocratic state. For people who do, the religious/political dogma (Oxford: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.") is overweeningly important, one way or the other: they impose it on others or have it imposed on them by others.
The only certainty I express is what I accept and reject: on that subject, I have no more doubts than does my friend the bolded union activist.

(Another certainty brought to my attention by the number of edits i just had to make is the necessity of cleaning this keyboard.)

My dogma is the stuff you have to already assent to to even make sense what I'm saying. The disbeliefs you have to suspend. — unenlightened

That's a remarkably bare list :D

What's yours? — unenlightened

Oh I have all kinds of dogmas, in this way of talking. Strictly speaking atheism would count since it's not an aspect of knowledge, but mere belief. So I suppose you could say I'm strictly an agnostic, though I know what I believe.

But just as Hume pointed out that he strictly disbelieved in causality, sobut he continued to believe in it the moment he stopped doing philosophy.

Also I'd say that my Marxist and Anarchist tendencies count as dogma.

EDIT: I should also mention Feminism, and Epicureanism -- I mean I like philosophy and I think about philosophy and freely let my mind wander, so many many dogmas are a part of my life. (I'm no rationalist, though. I just like rationality) There's also this lovely book I have called Zen Anarchism that I feel gets close to my kind of dogma.

Fair. I can see what you mean.

As William James says, "The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires."

This I would apply to the moral more than the mundane. I realize a bridge can be built only a certain way.

So even should a belief in God be entirely delusional, if it should lead to greater happiness, and should its disbelief lead to misery, you'd be hard pressed to explain why we should accept the cold hard scientific misery unless you hold that adherence to empirically motivated beliefs is always righteous. Such would be a basic tenant of your dogma. — Hanover

Note that James refers to "what a truth means..." That isn't a statement regarding how we determine what is or is not true. It sounds to me like a Jamesian effort to express Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim (how to determine what we mean by a concept or idea).

So, what a belief in God or what a particular belief in God means may be determined by "the conduct it dictates or inspires" (regardless of its truth).

It's not clear to me that "happiness" is a kind of conduct; nor is it clear to me that we can ascribe any particular kind of conduct as being dictated or inspired by a general, undefined "belief in God." So, I doubt that James' statement can be of much use to you in the point I think you're trying to make.

If we add a bit of context, and explanation, we may be able to determine the type of conduct a belief in God dictates or inspires. A belief that "X is the one, true God" for example might result in conduct of a certain kind.

Regardless, though, if your point is that what makes us happy should be preferred to what makes us miserable, the truth or meaning of that claim would also seem to call for some context in order for it to be determined.

The more context is significant in making a judgment, the less it is a matter of dogma, I think.

The question dealt with what harm there was from the good acts that resulted from the belief in god, and your response here is that it makes you sad. — Hanover

Perhaps that's because I don't take things at face value. I consider the possible ramifications of my personal decisions, on the lives and well being of others.
I think folks like Gandhi and MLK did as well, but they got the source of their humanism completely wrong.
I am sure some members of the proud boys or the KKK have performed 'good acts' but I still wish to dismantle their organisations and any influence they have as completely as possible.

Other than that consequence, you need to describe the negative impact of their religious motivation. If there isn't one, then you have a pragmatic justification for a belief in God. — Hanover

I have already stated what I think are the negative impacts of the religious aspect of the motivations of folks like MLK. There is no evidence that the source or main support of his motivation, exists. That harms everyone, as the truth matters.

It's entirely irrelevant whether one could have done the same thing without such a belief. What is relevant is that in those instances, that was that motivation. — Hanover

On the contrary, it's very relevant indeed, as it demonstrates, no god required.

If people do right for what you designate as the wrong reason, you are left with an absolutist definition of wrong, which suggests consequences are irrelevant, but that there is a over-riding principle that determines what is a right reason. — Hanover

No, what you are left with is a person doing something for a wrong reason, not an absolutist definition of wrong. You are exaggerating again. Helping another human because that's what you think god wants you to do, is an inferior moral position imo, compared to helping another human because that's what you want to do, no god sanction required.

This over-riding principle has already been identified in other posts, and it is what we are referencing as "atheistic dogma." That dogma holds that any belief not empirically justifiable is to be discarded, regardless of the utility it might have in bringing about good to the world or to the individual believer. — Hanover

Yes, and I strongly disagree with your and others description of atheistic dogma, because atheism is a response to theism. God has to be posited before it can be refuted. Theism is the original dogma. Atheism seeks to defend against that original and continuing religious dogma.
No, any belief, not empirically justified, should be considered pure speculation at best, and as such, would by no stretch of rationality, ever be allowed to influence so many peoples lives in the very negative ways it is allowed to, in this 21st century.

If you don't feel you must give justification for this principle I have just identified, then that is the very definition of dogma. — Hanover

What 'principle' are you assuming you have identified?
I have already dealt with that, in stating that I strongly disagree with the descriptions offered so far in this thread, that you are attempting to pool together, as valid descriptions of atheistic dogma and I have already explained why.

If you suggest that any use of non-empirically based justifications for beliefs will necessarily result in some negative consequence, you will have to show empirically what that it is. If you can't, you will be in violation of your own principle, and you will actually be invoking faith as your basis. — Hanover

Such certainly can and absolutely does result in negative consequences. All current organised religions are non-empirical justifications for belief in a god and have no evidence or valid justification at all, for daring to base and impose, a moral code on humankind, that claims to be the revealed wants of a creator of this universe. If you want evidence of the harm done then you should seek out the live testimony of those who describe such harm done to them. I am sure they can produce further and further evidence that demonstrates what happened in their life due to religious pressures applied to them, alongside all this 'good' you claim the 'religious' mindset does.
Try watching something like:

I am in violation of no principle I hold to be important, and you have so far, exemplified nothing of consequence that challenges that position imo.
Whereas imo, you have yet to even begin to justify the theistic views you maintain. If you need full guidance/advice on how to deal with everyday human issues such as gossip, and interacting with neighbours, then secular humanism can do that for you, as well, or probably better, than passages from Leviticus and the writings of Mr Kagan, as god and god threats for non-compliance will have been removed.

you are simply bowing down to your principle as infallible without proof. — Hanover

Quote where I suggested that atheism or secular humanism is infallible!
It's the religious fanatic that claims god is beyond question and is absolute fact.
Atheism makes no such equivalent claim. I think folks such as @Jamal, kens this fine.

look, look, is that in an invisible hand? — Vera Mont

:rofl: I love that logic as akin to the kind of logic peddled to people by monsters such as M Thatcher via her admiration for Smith. When will all the people understand that you cannot see an invisible hand by looking! They still seem able to fool some of the people all of the time and that still seems to be enough for the nefarious to get rich on.

You have a higher opinion of general human nature and potential than I do. I agree with Spinoza: “Everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare.”

Your bad attempts to goad me are just that, bad attempts, but then you do use a two faced god as your representation image. Perhaps you are just trying to live up to that image. — universeness

Yes, I was trying to goad you, though not to defensiveness or anger but to attempt to make an actual argument and come up with some actual facts instead of continuing to present mere assertions. Apparently, you can't do that, so the rational thing to do would be to admit that, let go of your baseless and ugly fanaticism and take a more reasonable and humane approach; but that will take some humility...and resorting to defensive ad hominems won't help you get there.

Let's get this clear. If atheism is simply a lack of believe in God, then I am an atheist because I don't believe there is a God. The next step would be to believe that there is no God, and I don't take that step. I don't have a settled opinion on the matter.

I think what @unenlightened (he can correct me if I am getting this wrong) was aiming at in creating this thread was anti-theism, and that is dogma, just as much as theism is, taking both as political stances; as claims as to what others should believe. This kind of theistic or ant-theistic dogmatism from either side is socially divisive, and is part of the problem, not part of a solution. To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy.

Well said as always.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy. — Janus

False equivalence (like anti-fascism "is as bad as" fascism ... anti-sexism "is as bad as" sexism...) :roll:

Let's get this clear. If atheism is simply a lack of believe in God, then I am an atheist because I don't believe there is a God. The next step would be to believe that there is no God, and I don't take that step. I don't have a settled opinion on the matter. — Janus

Then you're a lukewarm or moderate atheist, or else at the lower end of the agnostic spectrum. Both are perfectly acceptable and recognized positions, with zero requirements for dogmatic adherence. People slide up and down that scale all the time. http://researcherslinks.com/current-issues/The-NonReligious-NonSpiritual-Scale-NRNSS-Measuring-Everyone-from-Atheists-to-Zionists/9/16/119/html

was aiming at in creating this thread was anti-theism, and that is dogma, just as much as theism is, — Janus

There is also a range of anti-theism, which tends to depend on the subject's proximity to toxic, repressive and highly political centers, either currently or in their formative years. People who have experienced more pain, humiliation, discrimination and social rejection on the basis of their lack of faith do tend to be more strongly outspoken against the religion which subjected them to those experiences - though they are often more lenient toward exotic religions in other parts of the world. That's not dogma: it's not dictated to them by an authority: that is anger and sometime bitterness.

taking both as political stances; as claims as to what others should believe. — Janus

No, it's far more often derision or contempt of what other do believe - or hypocritically claim to believe but do not act if they believed. And it is a political stance, because the issues in which they were/are the victims are politically enacted.

This kind of theistic or ant-theistic dogmatism from either side is socially divisive, — Janus

The social divisions are deep and long-standing; they were here long before any of us. And they are not open to "solution" when the oppressor doesn't merely refuse to yield an inch, but is presently, relentlessly, tightening its stranglehold. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

Of course it's politically motivated; not remotely due to Jesus or Moses or or Paul. But the bible and religiosity in general are their cover story, their banner and rallying cry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5665159/

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy. — Janus

I really don't think that's either currently nor historically accurate. (FFS, don't go down the Stalin-hole!)

I think what unenlightened (he can correct me if I am getting this wrong) was aiming at in creating this thread was anti-theism, and that is dogma, just as much as theism is, taking both as political stances; as claims as to what others should believe. This kind of theistic or ant-theistic dogmatism from either side is socially divisive, and is part of the problem, not part of a solution. To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy. — Janus

No. Not my argument at all. I have said more than once, that I am not even interested in who the good guys are. On the contrary, that is the vacuous argument I am complaining about. But It's unsurprising that you get drawn into it even as a non dogmatic atheist.

My argument is very simple, and resolves to the question of by what authority is theism judged? If one sticks to the facts, and to the fact/value distinction, the judgement cannot be rationally made. That it is made, and has been made throughout this thread, is the dogma of atheism. It was all laid out in the op and not a word has been said against it that I have seen. I have no criticism of the judgement, it is the claim to fact and rationality that I dispute.

It was all laid out in the op and not a word has been said against it that I have seen. — unenlightened

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/811827

Yes, you are on the side of the angels! Hurray for you! So rational and freethinking.Thank goodness you have put us all straight at last! Hang on while I nail you to this cross.

:halo:

That amounts to saying that theism is the moral equivalent of nazism or sexism. :roll:

No. Not my argument at all. I have said more than once, that I am not even interested in who the good guys are. — unenlightened

Nor am I; I thought you were identifying the dogmatic aspect of anti-theism as being no better than the dogmatic aspect of theism, and basically identifying dogma, which is always based on literalist reading, as being the problem in the sense that it creates fundamentalism. I mean in your OP you explicitly state that atheist dogma created fundamentalism; are you now backing away from that?

People who have experienced more pain, humiliation, discrimination and social rejection on the basis of their lack of faith do tend to be more strongly outspoken against the religion which subjected them to those experiences — Vera Mont

Maybe there's more of that in the US than here in Australia; I haven't encountered it to be honest, except perhaps among extremist sects like the Plymouth Brethren. And I haven't been referring to people who have experienced that and are justifiably angry; I have been referring to people on both sides who dogmatically they know what humanity would be better of with. Of course, we all know humanity would be better off without extremist sects, but that is not what I'm addressing.

No, it's far more often derision or contempt of what other do believe - or hypocritically claim to believe but do not act if they believed. And it is a political stance, because the issues in which they were/are the victims are politically enacted. — Vera Mont

I don't believe that the kinds of victims that you are referring here constitute the majority of anti-theists.

The social divisions are deep and long-standing; they were here long before any of us. And they are not open to "solution" when the oppressor doesn't merely refuse to yield an inch, but is presently, relentlessly, tightening its stranglehold. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights — Vera Mont

I've already acknowledged that theocracy, or the politization of religion in any form is a problem, so that's not what I'm referring to. I agree the divisions are long standing, but it doesn't follow that deepening them will be a move towards social harmony.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy.
— Janus

I really don't think that's either currently nor historically accurate. (FFS, don't go down the Stalin-hole!) — Vera Mont

What I say there may have come across the wrong way due to a possible terminological ambiguity. What I meant was that a government that enforces law in accordance with religious dogma is not worse than a government which enforces law in accordance with anti-religious dogma. The kind of government I am talking about would be the opposite of a theocracy which mandates religion, and its involvement in politics by banning religion altogether, and disallowing any political opinions which are religiously motivated.

It's one thing to disallow the legal enforcement or political mandating of religiously motivated discrimination against, for example LGBT people, and another to legally enforce disallowing anyone to even hold or express such personal views publicly. The latter, no matter how distasteful you might find the views to be, is anti-democratic.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy, as I intended the term, would be one which banned religion altogether. Would you want that?

Thanks ND.

Yes, I was trying to goad you, though not to defensiveness or anger but to attempt to make an actual argument and come up with some actual facts instead of continuing to present mere assertions. Apparently, you can't do that, so the rational thing to do would be to admit that, let go of your baseless and ugly fanaticism and take a more reasonable and humane approach; but that will take some humility...and resorting to defensive ad hominems won't help you get there. — Janus

I think all of the frustration is coming from your words, not mine. You only offer pantomime style responses, you offer no supporting evidence or examples or valid counter arguments.
Janus: "Universeness! Make an actual argument." :cry:
Me: "I already have, many of them, many times" :roll:
Janus: "Oh no you haven't, admit it!" :groan:
Me: "Oh yes I have, so you need to read my posts again and try harder to understand them" :smile:
Janus: "Oh no you haven't, and oh no I wont, I wont, I wont, I wont! You're a fanatic!! Universeness!" " :broken:

I mean in your OP you explicitly state that atheist dogma created fundamentalism; are you now backing away from that? — Janus

No, I'm not backing away, but that is a matter of fact, not a matter of argument, which I support with a wiki link. Clearly there are other sources (psychological) of dogmatism, fundamentalism and literalism which are to do with identification. But that happened and was noticed at the time as wiki says. And you can see the same process at work in reverse too. I make a criticism of some atheist argumentation, people take it personally and their position hardens, even to the point of my explicitly being blamed for setting them up, for some trollish reason. This is what happens when someone's identity is felt to be attacked, because people are not nearly as rational as they would like to think they are - that is an identification, that also leads to dogmatic thinking.

My moral position is that this is a 'good thing', because rationality becomes robotic and dehumanising, because human nature, and the nature of all living things is to care about things, and caring is not rational.

:rofl:

:up: I agree that people are not as rational as they imagine. Also, rationality as a principle of argumentation is really just being consistent and coherent in your thinking, and says nothing about the premises. A rational argument can be based on unsound premises; many are. The premises themselves are often emotionally driven, and in any argument are not rationally supported by the argument itself, lest the argument be circular.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy, as I intended the term, would be one which banned religion altogether. Would you want that? — Janus

No one on this thread, has ever suggested banning religion or theism or theosophism, that would only increase it's status and offer it an underground cool status.
I advocate for neutralising it's ability to influence people, in the same way as I advocate against people being given medication, they really don't need. Nefarious big pharma owners make so much money from doing so, that they demonstrate clearly, that they prefer profits to the well being of people.
Horrors like the Sackler family and their wonder, but in fact horror opiate drug OxyContin, would be an example, of the analogy, I would cite.

Theism/religion plays a similar role in sooooooo many peoples lives. It can help you in the short time but the side effects and long term ramifications are problematic for most, at best, and downright disastrous, when it controls the mindset of so many powerful people/politicians, in positions of authority. Even in so called secular political systems, who claim to have separated theism from politics. :roll:
A god 'fearing' politician is a danger. I would not call for a law that only allows non-believers to hold political office, because I am a socialist and that would not be acceptable. I rely on the people to become educated enough to be able to see the dangers of religious zealots, and be able to recognise them by being able to penetrate the stealth tactics and camouflage used, and not vote for them or even learn that no-one should ever ever ever, send any of their money to such nefarious characters as TV evanhellists.

My moral position is that this is a 'good thing', because rationality becomes robotic and dehumanising, because human nature, and the nature of all living things is to care about things,and caring is not rational. — unenlightened

Whaaaaat? Do you really feel like that? Is that unenlightened or just sooooooo sad?
If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' than how would you ever be capable of experiencing love?

False equivalence (like anti-fascism "is as bad as" fascism ... anti-sexism "is as bad as" sexism...) :roll:
8 hours ago — 180 Proof

I know most members on this site are not too keen on cheerleading but that was a 'knock out' sentence imo. I think even William Lane Craig would have felt the pain of that one!
I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism.

I'll take that change of subject as your concession of my point.

Thanks. :up:

or more precisely the belief that there is a correct interpretation, which is the incorrect interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But I don't think that anything goes. "Valid" is the word I think of as correct.

Validity depends on context. By asking different questions, one sets a context. There's an old question about whether Epicurus anticipated modern atomic theory. For me, the answer is no, since he didn't know modern science and his atoms are very different from ours. Not everyone feels the same way. But I don't argue with them. I just ignore them. Again, some people think that Berkeley anticipated relativity theory. There are striking resemblance and connections, but I think that "anticipated" is far too strong. Our relativity is very different from his.

The complication comes with "meaning". In ordinary language, we do get involved with what the speaker/author intended; we divine those by the context. If I'm a soldier on parade, the words of command mean (intend when uttered) a precise response. Alternative interpretations are frowned on. Flexibility of interpretation is appropriate in response to the kinds of case that we have been talking about, but that's a different context.

I think this evasion or deflection happens in science just as it does in religion. — Janus

That's fair. There's a very fine line between parking the question what burning (as in fire) is when you are an alchemist and don't have the theoretical context to explain the phenomena (which turned up eventually in molecular theory) and dodging the issue, as when Aristotelians ended up characterizing matter as pure potential.

If all you are advocating is that people become better educated, then I have no argument with that. That said, there are plenty of highly educated theists, so I don't there is much evidence that being highly educated will lead to people rejecting their religious beliefs.

I'll take that change of subject as your concession of my point. — 180 Proof

Strange that you should that what I said was a change of subject.

:up:

I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism. — universeness

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other.

I was just making a mild joke — Tom Storm

Point taken.

Not recognizing a bit of fun when I was talking about the role of fun in philosophy is a bit of a mis-step.

I tend towards anti-foundationalist skepticism myself. — Tom Storm

I'm very taken with Hume's distinction between excessive scepticism and moderate scepticism. He condemns the former and recommends a dose of ordinary life as a cure, but recommends the latter as the best approach to life, including philosophy.

PS added later. Hume describes moderate acepticism as "judicious" which I think is a splendid and spot on. I couldn't remember it when I wrote the last paragraph.

Maybe that's the better route towards understanding dogmatism critically. — Moliere

It's a question of one's attitude to others. Subject to the paradox of tolerance and provided tolerance doesn't mean one cannot listen to others and take them seriously, your route seems the only tolerable option.

I once knew someone who was passionate about the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, he took this to mean that when someone disagreed with his argument, he should repeat the argument. He was perfectly patient, never dogmatic, but never responded properly. He was dogmatic, but not offensive - just boring.