fishin' wrote:IronLionZion wrote: My problem is that religion is dogma, and therefore, asks its adherants to follow its tenets without question.
This, in my opinion, is always wrong, as fluid intrepretations of dogma lead to atrocities which are motivated and supported by religious beliefs.
You have your own bit of circular logic going on here ILZ. While I agree with much of what you've written in this thread you decry dogma but than insist that somthing is "always wrong" which is itself, a form of dogma.
In your first post here you said:
IronLionZion wrote:I am against any dogma - anything that favors faith and blind adherance above independant reason - which is essentially what all religions ask of thier followers.
Any dogma? Or just dogma that you don't agree with? Relying entirely on "independent reason" is just as much a dogma as relying on faith is. How can you be against any dogma and then create your own?
I value independent reason above all else. It seems to me that dogma is the diametric opposite of this.
By dogma, I mean doctrine or body of doctrines - usually concerining morality, rules of conduct, and life in general - that demands adhernace and is dependent on faith, no?
If we define faith as belief in something without evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, then independent reason is the opposite of faith.
I have a hard time believing that many people would come to the Christian conclusion - that we are the product of a baby killing homophobic egotist who will burn non-believers for eternity - if they used independent reasoning, instead of building thier worldview on whatever religious template is prevalent in their society.
If it makes you feel better, you could say the only dogma I advocate is no dogma. Whether that in itself constitutes a dogma is a matter of semantics, in my opinion.
