I just today read a blog entry on http://skepticblog.org/ titled “FURTHER THOUGHTS ON ATHEISM”. I’d recommend that you read the entire entry as well as the original entry he refers to “The Standard Pablum — Science and Atheism” if you want to get a complete view of the issues.
The reason for my post here is to discuss dogma. Let me give you a definition of dogma first so we are clear as to what we are talking about. This is from Wikipedia:
I was upset about the many angry, vitriolic comments he receive about his first entry because the tone and content of them was no different that what I would expect from a fundamentalist from Christianity, Islam or any other religion. So, here is my response to “FURTHER THOUGHTS ON ATHEISM” that I posted as a response to that blog entry.
I am not going to try to address the specific points raised here. My response is more general.
I’m new to the skeptical community. I’ve been turned off by religious dogma because I feel that pretty much every group that you can call an “ism” are pretty much set in their mindsets and no amount of debate can change their minds. Well, from what I have seen of many of the more intense responses to this issue you’ve raised in “The Standard Pablum — Science and Atheism”, these responses aren’t any different from those from other ‘isms’. Feelings out outrage, betrayal that their sacred beliefs (yes, and I mean scared) have been somehow questioned or betrayed.
I’ve become involved in the skeptical community because I hope that it can help to free people from the clutches of “isms” and dogmatic beliefs. A way of thinking that values diversity, free thought and open debate, and personal liberty. Instead I find the exact same type of people and mode of thought that made me abandon organized religion.
Hardcore or radical atheism, in my view, is no different than any other dogmatic religious belief system. Maybe we should start calling these people fundamental atheists?
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.