Please note that this post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link
What a pointless post. Sure, if we consider dogma as just being "a set of beliefs" then everyone, atheist and non-atheist is dogmatic. But the way christians use the word about atheists, and vice-versa, is to suggest that the group in the question hold the beliefs despite the lack of evidence, or evidence presented to them contrary to their position.What Sam Harris is saying is that in fact atheists often become atheists (and obviously there's an element of generalisation here, but so what?) because there is no evidence for God and plenty of evidence to suggest that many of "God's achievements" were the product of natural processes. Please read more carefully and consider the context words are being used in next time, rather than just misinterpreting someone just to make a (largely irrelevant) point.
Thanks for checking in.I must say that I remain unconvinced by the self-serving dogmatic generalization to how atheists come to be that both you and Sam Harris employ.If you conclude that “there is no evidence for God” what would you consider as something that would count as evidence?aDios,Mariano
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.