were in trouble, the righties have got the dictionary out again.

As you can see what she posted was a direct quote from dictionary.com

and that proves what doc? besides dictionary.com being a poor choice for precision (specially when ya use the lowest definition listed).   she is actually a he btw.

this is a far superior explanation of dogma vs just any old opinion.  id also suggest (since this is a discussion about religion) checking some religious dictionaries where you'll discover just how weak dictionary.com is in this instance.

As a fundamental element of religion, the term dogma is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith.

Being anti religion is a religion. It takes just as much faith (but not a lot of intellect) to believe there is no God as there is to be a follower of Jesus.

since this is the issue i originally raised, might as well include your statement as well.

not believing requires no faith whatsoever.  there is no revelation to question.  no organization to join. no rituals to perform.  no fundamentals that must be accepted or adhered to.  ergo (and folks, please watch carefully cuz im gonna do this slowly so nobody gets confused) while one may be both a secularist and religious, everything i just noted about atheism is also true for secularism.  no revelations.  no organization.  no ritual . no fundamentals.  no dogma. 

which means there is not, nor can there be anything one could reasonably describe as a 'secular fundamentalist' in the sense the term was used in this article (unless, of course, you were referring to fundamentalist christians, muslims, jews, etc who are first and foremost fervent secularists and only then religious fundamentalists). 

now can we please move on?

So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a valid dictionary?

i see nothing at dictionary.com that indicates theyre associated with any specific dictionary, but if you'll take a few minutes to google for a definition of 'dogma' you should easily discover that your attempt to validate 'an opinion or belief' as defining dogma is like insisting that 'supersonic' means exactly the same as 'fast'.   of course it does mean fast but there is a specific connotation (like...faster than the speed of sound) that would have to be ignored.  you may have no respect for the precision of words--altho i doubt it.   either way, it's on you...not me.

We can't until we can agree on what dictionaries and definitions are valid, since the American Heritage Dictionary is clearly invalid as well as any definitions that are not the primary ones

why even use the word dogma when we could as easily use opinion?  if you choose the fourth ingredient listed on a box of cereal, you prolly are convinced youre really eating wheat or some other grain rather than mostly sugar.

Remember, if we don't have flawless semantics in this, an entire article will be disregarded because of one word whose primary definition is not used.

disregard would be the kindest fate available to an article based on a claim for the existence of secular fundamentalists.

Reply #26 By: whoman69 - 12/26/2004 8:16:46 PM were in trouble, the righties have got the dictionary out again.

At least we know what they are, where to find them and how to use them.

if that were the case, this thread would have half as many comments as it does.

Do a search for American Heritage Dictionary on this page. If you still can't find it, and if you still deny that words have multiple definitions, then what's the point of discussing anything with you? I'm seriously starting to believe you're purposely being stubborn. It's not as if the mention of the dictionary is hidden.

In fact, I have a feeling that the whole bitchfest about words not being used with their primary definitions was simply a lure to avoid discussing the actual article, so I'm through here, and I'll try to bring the discussion back to the actual topic.