Atheism Is Atheism Dogmatic?

[Atheist]

Ironically, Mr Atheist, many of the people who I know who do believe in caste are also atheists. Oxy{censored} or what hey?

That is quite ironic. The misconception people have is that atheism is a dogma, a religion, a faith, a philosophy, etc. It is NONE of those. The one and only similarity (other than being humans and stuff) that atheists have is that they do not believe in god. I could care less about caste, and I wish I didn't know that my ancestors were apparently carpenters. Who cares?? Oh, apparently all of India (or at least enough of a majority to make this antiquated idea still an issue). People that I have met that care about caste have all been Indian, and none were atheist. Such hypocrisy, the religion preaches no caste but in practice they prefer the same caste (yes yes I know, not ALL indians are like this, but again it is enough to make it still an issue).

What is more ironic is that religion specifically preaches being humble - yet the most arrogant people I have ever met are religious. Another reason I don't like religion.

 

[Randip Singh]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

That is quite ironic. The misconception people have is that atheism is a dogma, a religion, a faith, a philosophy, etc.

Actually you couldn't be further from the Truth.

'Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.' by RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

The Fundamentalist Dogma of Atheism


Also here on Channel 4 there was an excellent documentary on how Atheists have become as dogmatic as religious nuts.

BTW I cannot stand fanatics, no matter what their guise.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Two threads posted this week relevant to Randip ji's closing points.


Burden of Proof

Richard Dawkins: The man who gave atheism a bad name

 

[Atheist]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

As a typical theist ploy, you took an atheistic quote out of context to prove your point. What you pasted was not a statement, it was something used for discussion:

START QUOTE
Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

by RichardDawkins.net

Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.

END QUOTE

That's what the site says. It's NOT Richard Dawkins STATING that atheists are just as dogmatic, it is him (or someone else) posting a seemingly controversial statement to see how people would attack it - as an exercise. You just saw that one statement and pasted it on here to make it look like Richard Dawkins is calling himself dogmatic.

Please don't take quotes out of context. Your cooperation is appreciated.

 

[Randip Singh]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

As a typical theist ploy, you took an atheistic quote out of context to prove your point. What you pasted was not a statement, it was something used for discussion:

START QUOTE
Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

by RichardDawkins.net

Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.

END QUOTE

That's what the site says. It's NOT Richard Dawkins STATING that atheists are just as dogmatic, it is him (or someone else) posting a seemingly controversial statement to see how people would attack it - as an exercise. You just saw that one statement and pasted it on here to make it look like Richard Dawkins is calling himself dogmatic.

Please don't take quotes out of context. Your cooperation is appreciated.

You are missing my point. The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today. Let me explain why:

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

 

[Atheist]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

Thank you for your response.

The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today.

Yes, some people may see that. There are also some people that think the earth is flat (there is a Flat Earth Society - I'm not joking). That of course would not suggest that it's really true (those people who believe the earth is flat are simply wrong). Atheism is simply the non-belief or the dis-belief in god. You are an a-leprechaunist right? You simply don't believe in leprechauns, but it would be absurd to suggest that you have a "dogma" that preaches against the existence of leprechauns.

Bottom line is, no matter what, there are good chrisitans and bad christians, good sikhs and bad sikhs, good hindus and bad hindus, good agnostics and bad agnostics, and good atheists and bad atheists. I will be the first to admit that, and I will be the first to admit that I have done wrong things in my life (would anyone else like to conclude anything different about themselves?). I would argue that the thing that defines one's character is what they do and what they learn from the bad mistakes they've made. Making mistakes is simply human.

Anyone who is atheist that acts poorly or attempts to act in a dogmatic way is also wrong...but atheism doesn't teach that...atheism doesn't "teach" anything, just like a-leprechaunism doesn't "teach" anything - they are both disbeliefs in a fictitious character. So by itself (in and of itself), atheism is not a dogma. Those who treat it like one, atheist or not, are wrong. Similarly, by itself a-leprechaunism is not a dogma. Those who are foolish enough to use it as a dogma need to see my friend (who is training to be a psychiatrist).

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

Agreed (just like a-leprechaunism)

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Agreed, although this is not exactly an argument in its favor (the Flat Earth Society is based in belief too).

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

Again, not an argument in favor of "belief" since after all the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, and it would be absurd to simply say "well the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, so no matter how much rational proof you provide that the earth is round, you can't challenge my 'belief' that it is indeed flat."

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

Yes, we do have atheists saying that. Believing in leprechauns is also not rational. It is fine to admit that it is from "The Journal of Duh" and I'm actually pleased you did. Lots of christians tell me that their religion is completely rational (I particularly like how they say people used to live 800-900 years but now we live less because we are sinners - as if people did not sin back then...and since the life expectancy is getting longer and longer, does that mean we are now sinning less and less but not quite as less as in biblical times?).

Religion is non-rational but that's the not the big issue. The Flat Earth Society is non-rational but 99.9999% of everyone could care less about it, right? It doesn't bother you and you don't lose sleep over it right? If you do, see my friend.

What we're trying to say is that not only is religion non-rational, it can be dangerous. For example, in the US there is a christian dentist in Texas who seems to have a lot of influence over what is written in textbooks that elementary school children read. Because of his religion, he would like nothing more than to have his creationist fairy tails in those textbooks to indoctrinate children from an early age. So his non-rational belief is seriously becoming dangerous. If he were to succeed, I would have to send my kids to a private school.

Let us not forget suicide bombers, the crusades, & the Aztecs who ritualistically (per their religion) cut out the heart of someone and while it was still beating threw it down a long stair case in some ****** egregious practice to please their god. So it goes beyond non-rational...religion becomes dangerous.

Of course, I will admit that Sikhism is light-years ahead of other religions. If it were a race toward the truth, and all religions were contestants, it wouldn't even be a close match. That's how rational Sikhism is compared to other religions.

The concept of caste is out-dated and, while some may hypothetically say that "back then" it had a role, it has absolutely no role today. People worrying about it, arguing in families over it (ie marrying out of caste), and even caring about it are wasting their time. I could care less what "caste" I am and in this day in age it's unbelievable to know that I have been rejected by girls because I wasn't a jatt.

I hereby remove my caste, I am now a neutral human being without caste.

 

[Randip Singh]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

Thank you for your response.

The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today.

Yes, some people may see that. There are also some people that think the earth is flat (there is a Flat Earth Society - I'm not joking). That of course would not suggest that it's really true (those people who believe the earth is flat are simply wrong). Atheism is simply the non-belief or the dis-belief in god. You are an a-leprechaunist right? You simply don't believe in leprechauns, but it would be absurd to suggest that you have a "dogma" that preaches against the existence of leprechauns.

Bottom line is, no matter what, there are good chrisitans and bad christians, good sikhs and bad sikhs, good hindus and bad hindus, good agnostics and bad agnostics, and good atheists and bad atheists. I will be the first to admit that, and I will be the first to admit that I have done wrong things in my life (would anyone else like to conclude anything different about themselves?). I would argue that the thing that defines one's character is what they do and what they learn from the bad mistakes they've made. Making mistakes is simply human.

Anyone who is atheist that acts poorly or attempts to act in a dogmatic way is also wrong...but atheism doesn't teach that...atheism doesn't "teach" anything, just like a-leprechaunism doesn't "teach" anything - they are both disbeliefs in a fictitious character. So by itself (in and of itself), atheism is not a dogma. Those who treat it like one, atheist or not, are wrong. Similarly, by itself a-leprechaunism is not a dogma. Those who are foolish enough to use it as a dogma need to see my friend (who is training to be a psychiatrist).

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

Agreed (just like a-leprechaunism)

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Agreed, although this is not exactly an argument in its favor (the Flat Earth Society is based in belief too).

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

Again, not an argument in favor of "belief" since after all the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, and it would be absurd to simply say "well the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, so no matter how much rational proof you provide that the earth is round, you can't challenge my 'belief' that it is indeed flat."

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

Yes, we do have atheists saying that. Believing in leprechauns is also not rational. It is fine to admit that it is from "The Journal of Duh" and I'm actually pleased you did. Lots of christians tell me that their religion is completely rational (I particularly like how they say people used to live 800-900 years but now we live less because we are sinners - as if people did not sin back then...and since the life expectancy is getting longer and longer, does that mean we are now sinning less and less but not quite as less as in biblical times?).

Religion is non-rational but that's the not the big issue. The Flat Earth Society is non-rational but 99.9999% of everyone could care less about it, right? It doesn't bother you and you don't lose sleep over it right? If you do, see my friend.

What we're trying to say is that not only is religion non-rational, it can be dangerous. For example, in the US there is a christian dentist in Texas who seems to have a lot of influence over what is written in textbooks that elementary school children read. Because of his religion, he would like nothing more than to have his creationist fairy tails in those textbooks to indoctrinate children from an early age. So his non-rational belief is seriously becoming dangerous. If he were to succeed, I would have to send my kids to a private school.

Let us not forget suicide bombers, the crusades, & the Aztecs who ritualistically (per their religion) cut out the heart of someone and while it was still beating threw it down a long stair case in some ****** egregious practice to please their god. So it goes beyond non-rational...religion becomes dangerous.

Of course, I will admit that Sikhism is light-years ahead of other religions. If it were a race toward the truth, and all religions were contestants, it wouldn't even be a close match. That's how rational Sikhism is compared to other religions.

The concept of caste is out-dated and, while some may hypothetically say that "back then" it had a role, it has absolutely no role today. People worrying about it, arguing in families over it (ie marrying out of caste), and even caring about it are wasting their time. I could care less what "caste" I am and in this day in age it's unbelievable to know that I have been rejected by girls because I wasn't a jatt.

I hereby remove my caste, I am now a neutral human being without caste.

Who says I am arguing in favour of belief?

What I am saying is Religion and Atheism should not try and mix.

Why should religious people who believe the Earth is flat try and convince atheism of their belief?

Vice a versa why should Atheists, try and tell people who believe something their belief is irrational?

What I am saying is two are distinct and separate. We have a mess now, where both sides seem to esposing their views to denigrate the other sides through an almost "dogmatic" view that one side is completely correct.

Its like saying an apple is better than an iguana.

here is a question, has Atheism in itself become a belief?

 

[Atheist]

Re: How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/Race?

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

Thank you for your reply. Please forgive my delay in responding as my life is getting quite hectic as of late and will become far more hectic next week.

Who says I am arguing in favour of belief?

I am glad you are not arguing in favor of belief. In my opinion blind belief is pointless and potentially dangerous (like the christian guy who has lots of influence on what is written in children's textbooks).

What I am saying is Religion and Atheism should not try and mix.

I think we have a moral obligation for them to try and mix. We have a moral obligation to have our voices heard against Islamic (or any other type of religious) terrorism. We have a moral obligation to speak out against genital mutilation in the name of religion. We have a moral obligation to say that children's textbooks should not have christian fairy tales in them. These ignorant religious bigots are causing pain & suffering and it is our duty to at least show them what rational thought is.

Of course, non-fundamental and non-bigoted religious people like yourself should also join in and "preach" (for lack of better word) rationality. I am not claiming that all religious people are 100% non-rational. In terms of social structure, for example, my dad is quite rational.

Why should religious people who believe the Earth is flat try and convince atheism of their belief?

They shouldn't, but give them a chance to and they will.

Vice a versa why should Atheists, try and tell people who believe something their belief is irrational?

Simply because it is irrational. As I alluded to in my last response, irrational is ok if you keep it to yourself (which you do) but when it becomes dangerous then atheists and non-atheists (or anyone who has a brain) should use words and not fists and swords to show why it is dangerous. There is no room in my book for forced genital mutilation, circumcision (unless it's voluntary and you have capacity to make the decision - something uncommon but I have heard of it happening), religious (or any type of) suicide bombers, crusaders, the christian in midwest america that killed an abortionist doctor in church, discrimination against gays, discrimination against disabled people (Sikh RM on the baptism - see my other post) or any other utterly ignorant and bigoted thing that SOME (not all) religious people think of.

What I am saying is two are distinct and separate. We have a mess now, where both sides seem to esposing their views to denigrate the other sides through an almost "dogmatic" view that one side is completely correct.

I actually agree with that. Atheists can be quite passionate about their views, but anyone (religious or atheist and everything in between) should try as much as possible to not be dogmatic. Atheists try to use actual facts, research, and data to make their points as much as possible (but also being human, they can make mistakes just like the rest of us). Religious people tend to but not always (unless you're christian) use scripture to prove your point. If your scripture tells you to fly planes into buildings, I'm sorry but I have no tolerance for that and we are morally obligated to at least speak out against it without using weapons (I agree with Guru Gobind Singh Ji - no weapons unless your own life is in danger).

Its like saying an apple is better than an iguana.

If you could demonstrate that iguana's are a danger to society, then you could totally make an argument that an apple is better than an iguana. In this hypothetical case, of course, both are benign. But in the case of rational thought and christian bigotry or Islamic terrorism, I would argue that on average (not 100% toward either side) christian bigotry and Islamic terrorism are far LESS benign than rational thought.

I am not trying to be offensive to Muslims who have brains and do not fly planes into buildings, just that if you are the type who wants to do that, you are quite delusional if you think you're getting 72 virgins for it (see the Family Guy episode that is a satire of this). Why not just forget about the whole plane into building idea and go to a strip club, at least that way no one dies because of your fundamentalist bigoted astonishingly ignorant religious fairy tale. What kind of a sick and twisted god would want a human being to fly a plane into a building? It turns my stomach to know that these people, and many other "religious" people in the past, have used their religion as a justification for this. Again, I am not saying that all religious people are like this. The question then turns to religious moderates - but that is a TOTALLY different topic that I am still investigating and trying to research (Christopher Hitchens has some interesting thoughts on this topic).

here is a question, has Atheism in itself become a belief?

I sure hope not. No two atheists are exactly alike. For me, atheism is as much of a belief as a-leprechaunism. However much you have a BELIEF in a-leprechaunism (which I hope is zero) is how much I have a BELIEF in atheism. The onus is on the person who claims that something exists, not the other way around. Otherwise we would have to have an infinite number of justifications for not believing in a potentially infinite number of things that COULD exist. So let's start by not believing in something until there is reason to do so. If something has real evidence of the pink unicorn, believe me I would be one of the first to want to see it.