It is not that dogma is unquestionable. Dogma is unyielding even after critical questioning. You really do need to get your head out of the dictionary and live life down here in the linguistic semantics trenches with the rest of the world. People don't live their linguistic semantic lives in the dictionary. Regardless of what you may say about the definition of dogma, and regardless of how many dictionaries you may consult about its meaning, dogma, as the word is used here in the world outside the
dictionary, implies an unwillingness to change one's mind, an entrenched, unwavering belief in the inerrancy of the idea being offered. That is the distinguishing trait of dogma. And that is why science, no part of it, is a dogma.
From: Mark R. Orel <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Monday, November 26,[masked]:17 AM
Subject: [humanism-174] Re: [humanism-174]FINAL response: My reply to an email my sister forwarded to me.....
First, I agree it is time to end this. This will be
my last post as well.
You misused metaphor when you insisted on
using the literal theological definition of religion.
Your comparison was no longer implied, you
made it literal.
unquestionable, is not
attached to the
definition of dogma.
And lastly I didn't realize that you and
one other constitutes everyone. You
really do need a better dictionary.
On[masked]:09, Chris K wrote:
My last attempt. Point by point.
On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:24 PM, "Mark R. Orel" <[address removed]>
Just to be clear, I did defined religion:
So you are using religion as,
any system of belief's, practices,
ethical values, etc., resembling,
suggestive of, or likened to such a
system. In that humanism, science,
politics and anything else can be a
Your response was:
No, the state was the religion.
Yes, metaphorically it was.
I then defined dogma and again religion:
Dogma, is a doctrine; tenet; belief.
Ritual, a set form or system of rites,
religious or otherwise.
Science, politics, humanism, all have
dogma and ritual, and spots even more
Correct but you left out the most universally
accepted aspect of dogma. It is unquestionable. .
Religion does not require a supreme
being. You are contradicting your own
assertion that the state can be a
Really?? Reread the preceeding two sentences and find
your own mistake.
Honestly, I'm too tired to point out something so
always gets me is that people seem
to think that the Stalinist Russia and Maoist
China had no religion. That couldn't be
from the truth. The state WAS the religion,
complete with unquestionable dogma, ritual,
and all the other accoutrements."
Please notice the word unquestionable.
your response was:
There has to be dogma, a supreme being and
Correct. You asked me how I was defining
religion. This is how I was defining religion in this
In order for the State to supplant the dominant
religion it required its own "supreme being". It had
I think everyone is right about you being a troll
though. I won't respond further to this thread. I think
I made my points perfectly clear. After this you'll have
to go back to your cave or under your bridge.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark R. Orel ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]