i think it is very important now to engage in religious discussion without DOGMA…
And I think that it is really important to understand what the square root of a negative number really means.
…and welcome back shy shelled reptile. 
Weird. Just this morning I was wondering what happened to that ILP poster that goes by the name of Turtle.
Hi Turtle.
thank you both…
we need to redefine religion…
How about… religion is the systematic cultivation of sacred outlook, i.e. through shared practices? I know it’s pathetically vague, but so are many dictionary definitions. The point of this one is that the place of dogma in this kind of religion is necessarily unstable and temporary.
Now if you happened to be someone like Steve Jobs or something, you could probably get people to redefine religion in this way en masse. Not that people would stop being dogmatic or anything.
I am outraged that the Turtle would write something with which I am forced to agree. Is this some kind of new trick??? 
Perhaps it might be helpful to acknowledge that ideology is indisputably part of the religious experience for very many people, but that religion is not necessarily exclusively about ideology, as many of our young friends here seem to think.
so are we on the same page so far-----
- we dont want dogma
- we want religion
- we want to redfine religion
how about religion and science sharing instead of fighting…i am sick of the silly fighting between atheist and deist…it is boring…
Well, we don’t want narrow-mindedness. Some dogmas actually combat narrow-mindedness. And some people don’t want religion. I see nothing wrong with that. And religion is what we collectively think of it as. I don’t think there’s any pressing need to redefine it. I mean, if there’s some better way than the old way, you can just use a different word. Whatever works for people I guess.
Why?
What is “dogma” other than something that you have been programmed to think ill of?
Dogma ≡ documented opinions that are to be agreed to.
A religion is a gathering of people who agree to specific (and thus documented) opinions concerning behavior.
How are you to have one without the other?
What you call it won’t change what it is.
Maybe it would be wiser (and a lot easier) to redefine the way you think about religion.
Science and Religion don’t actually disagree.
Prophets of both Science (theoretical physicists and Judeo-secularists/athists) and what you call the Religions argue.
Arguing is a part of both religious and sciencism methodology and formulae concerning how to control society into one big monolithic structure; "Arguing = Hell, “Agreeing = Heaven”, “The world = both, but separated”. Are you in their Heaven or in their Hell?
In short, you are arguing with the very people who control your world from the very top, including both Science and Religion (not that there is any social difference in the two).
I think of dogma more as opinions that are declared beyond question. Otherwise they’re just opinions, right? Or?
A religion can also be people seeking to explore an experience. Opinions regarding behavior are common, but not necessarily required. At least that’s how it seems here.
It’s also common to use “dogma” to mean a view you adhere to, in order to attain some end. In this sense, dogmas can be temporary and provisional. For instance in Tibetan Buddhism a graduated path is presented, with new dogmas presented at certain stages. Ultimately, any dogma would obstruct enlightenment.
To be agreed upon MEANS that you are not questioning the tenants.
It isn’t that you are to be killed if you disagree, but you can’t be a “member of agreement” (any particular religion) if you don’t agree.
The same holds for any other organization. You can’t be a socialist is you disagree with the tenants of socialism. Those tenants have to be documented if the organization is going to be very big, else it will fall to entropy. The whole point in documenting anything is to avoid entropy and dissolution (the “Abyss”).
Again, if they do not document their agreed opinion of what it is that they seek, they are doomed to be small and temporary.
=D>
I happen to disagree with that theory on a technicality. But yes, that properly represents Buddhism.
Tenets, not tenants. 
Ooppss… 
It seems to me that ‘dogma’ is a pejorative term for a specific rule or belief held by religious people. IOW it seems to me any religious belief could be labelled dogma. I am not sure how this could be avoided. Unless it means that everyone must qualify all of their beliefs.
It might be the case there is a God.
It seems good not to murder.
Correct me if this is wrong, but wasn’t very early Christianity fairly loose about ideology/theology – with several flavors from Judaistic to Greek Neoplatonist Christians? If I remember correctly, the essential thing was to follow the teachings of Jesus, living extremely modestly, using expendable time, energy and resources to care for the needy; also nonviolence, answering insult with gentleness. I recall an early church letter complaining about the gnostics not so much because of their different ideology as their laziness – their dualistic ideology had led to a life of sitting around talking and theologizing instead of doing works. Of course, things went south pretty fast after that…