Which one likes the frosted side?

@TheMiddleWay I’ve never said “there is no God,“ but as a nullifidian, I dismiss descriptions and accounts of a deity or gods as described in the religions of the world, just as I do all religions themselves, and could never accept such as a matter of “faith.”

My agnosticism informs me that we as a species have no evidence which might constitute knowledge of a deity, and that the existence of a god or gods is, in all likelihood, unknowable.

Therefore, lacking any faith in the existence of a deity, and having been presented with no evidence thereof, I am without a belief in a god or gods. In other words, I am also an atheist.

@TheMiddleWay Dogma, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." PLEASE show me where agnostics or atheists accept any authority as incontrovertibly true.

Yes, people do try to set themselves up as being "an authority" on atheism or agnosticism; but, lacking anything to back up that claim, very few agnostics or atheists are likely to accept them as authoritative.

Your reply is interesting. The Catholic Church has never given up dogma; they've just changed the dogma to try and demonstrate that they're just slightly in touch with modern times. But the Church still has a credo (edited for brevity's sake);

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God;
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead.

Now, if you don't believe that, you aren't Catholic! That's dogma.

The only way you can say there's an atheist/agnostic "dogma" is by twisting the principle that we are meant to be open-minded and seek evidence, into some kind of creed that the "top" agnostics laid down. But there's no such creed!

@TheMiddleWay Again, it's nothing to do with belief. I don't "believe" the world is round (actually an oblate spheroid); it just is. Looking at the facts shows that the world is round. The only way to conclude otherwise is to believe the facts are wrong, or to ignore them altogether.

And Plato "believed" there were eternal Forms, apart from the real world; that this world is an insubstantial shadow. Christianity is a Platonic religion, which holds that there's a "perfect" state of being (Heaven) somewhere else. I wouldn't hold up Plato as any kind of expert on fact-based knowledge.

When you talk about beliefs, no-one knows anything. That's why they are called beliefs. But you make a call and reject most of them.

With agnostics who leave their options open, unable to make a call eg Pascal's wager. Have they left the possibility open for all 5000 odd human developed deities, or is it mainly just the Abrahamic one ie are agnostics also dogmatic about 4999 deities but not their certain singular deity?

@puff i think my agnosticism must lie with #5001. i stay away from giving god a definition or character etc. because god is not in my awareness. i don t know of god well enough to claim or deny its existence.

@TheMiddleWay So a disbelief in Santa Claus/ Unicorns/ Thor or any other myth makes you dogmatic as well?

The trouble with agnostics/ atheists is you can't really group them besides the vague "some may share some principles, but not all share the same set of principles". This is hardly dogmatic. Pragmatic in which principles they adopt maybe, but not dogmatic as such. Need groups that follow an authority for that.

Think we will have to disagree on this one.

@TheMiddleWay
"Another example of the dogma is this notion that the world would be a better place without religion, a notion which has no basis in reality."

A belief that the world would be better without religion also does not necessarily mean the believer is dogmatic. You could have a very reasoned set of ideas that led you to that conclusion, but if they're not imposed by an authority, or may be completely different than another's reasoning, can rule out the notion of dogma. By your rationale, you could describe any belief people have as being dogmatic.

@TheMiddleWay So are you considering each individual like you described to be their own authority to satisfy that [soft] condition of dogmatism?

@TheMiddleWay But regardless of their method of forming their opinion/belief, unless you consider each of them that didn't get told what to believe out of some sort of imperative (like a church or the Republican party leadership for instance) to be their own authority, how would it be dogma and not simply a poorly reasoned belief?
To me that's not dissimilar from saying that a joke about Bill Cosby is necessarily racist. I don't think it follows logically that an unreasoned or poorly reasoned belief is dogma without showing the link or reason that it's dogmatic in the exact same was that you'd fail to be able to show a joke purely about Cosby raping women even explores the concept of race let alone is racist.

@TheMiddleWay Oh, I see your point now in the light of dismissing alternate theories and new information. But I guess I don't see how that applies to the OP. There isn't really any new information/ evidence/ findings to dismiss regarding the existence of god... unless you're saying that belief in and of itself is also dogma. If that's the case, literally everything is dogma all the time because there's likely someone, somewhere that has "evidence" you could be reviewing about something you believe that they don't (like how the Earth is actually flat) for a never ending task.

@TheMiddleWay nor you.

"For example, atheists and Christians might both be perceived as highly dogmatic as these categorizations take a stand on the existence of a God whereas agnostics do not (referred to as dogmatic recalcitrance)."
Once again, the correct definition of atheism, being without belief, is dishonestly replaced with the Christian definition that claims atheists dogmatically make the claim that their god doesn't exist.

"In Study 1, participants reported stereotypes that they believed society held about agnostics, atheists, and Christians. Common stereotypic traits for agnostics were indecisive, questioning, and confused, but for atheists were immoral, intolerant, and evil."
Meaning that the researchers surveyed the opinions of a bunch of ignorant morons off Amazon (MTurk), trolled them with an inciteful definition of atheists and found them to be hateful bigots. What a surprise!!!

"For example, atheists and Christians might both be perceived as highly dogmatic..."
Just what about atheists is dogmatic? Not believing means one doesn't believe a dogma. What part of not believing cannot be understood. Or is it, WILL NOT be understood. Mustn't let truth get in the way of hate.

@TheMiddleWay I gave the universal definition of atheism, and being obtuse with false statements and non-sequiturs can't change that. Saying that an analysis is lacking without saying how is fallacious ad hominem. And of course you run away from the question on what dogma atheists have.

The study is even worse, selecting ONLY CHRISTIANS for the poll of atheist characteristics!!
[tspace.library.utoronto.ca]

@TheMiddleWay The ad hominem was your claim that the analysis was lacking without any evidence. The alternative is to say that it's more bullshit from a troll who is unable and intentionally unwilling to comprehend content.. And I've seen my definition used by other posters with complete consistency. It's you and the Christians that try to redefine it. And still no answer to the dogmatism of atheists. Pure troll.