Not believing is dogmatism

[Wootah]

If you deny something you are dogmatic.

True/false?

[Ragna]

If you deny something you are dogmatic.

True/false?

Before two equally valid options, agnosticism is the non-dogmatic approach. When one of the options is not well defined, then ignosticism justifies the lack of belief as non-dogmatic, as the rational approach.

[bjs]

Before two equally valid options, agnosticism is the non-dogmatic approach. When one of the options is not well defined, then ignosticism justifies the lack of belief as non-dogmatic, as the rational approach.

I disagree with this. Being dogmatic is a style or method of belief. I a person can look at two (or more) equally valid options and respond by being dogmatically agnostic. A person can dogmatically insist that an opposing view is not well defined and thus become a dogmatic ignostic. As far as I am aware no belief system is immune from being dogmatic, just as no belief system is itself automatically dogmatic.

[Ragna]

Before two equally valid options, agnosticism is the non-dogmatic approach. When one of the options is not well defined, then ignosticism justifies the lack of belief as non-dogmatic, as the rational approach.

I disagree with this. Being dogmatic is a style or method of belief. I a person can look at two (or more) equally valid options and respond by being dogmatically agnostic. A person can dogmatically insist that an opposing view is not well defined and thus become a dogmatic ignostic. As far as I am aware no belief system is immune from being dogmatic, just as no belief system is itself automatically dogmatic.

Being dogmatic is following a Dogma:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

There's not such a thing as dogmatically agnostic. Being agnostic is the rejection of any dogma, to a more neutral "I don't know".

A person can rationally be ignostic until a certain concept is meaningfully defined.

To illustrate, I can be agnostic about if I have 2 pears or 3 in my kitchen but I can be ignostic about a belief in the holy round square, and so neither of these options are dogmatic because none is a belief in itself.

Only beliefs can be dogmatic, and only specifically if the beliefs have the following characteristics:

authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

[McCulloch]

There's not such a thing as dogmatically agnostic. Being agnostic is the rejection of any dogma, to a more neutral "I don't know".

Yes there is. Dogmatically agnostic is effectively saying, "I don't know, nobody else knows and no one can know."

Dogmatically ignostic is saying, "there is no meaningful definition and there cannot be a meaningful definition. "

[Ragna]

There's not such a thing as dogmatically agnostic. Being agnostic is the rejection of any dogma, to a more neutral "I don't know".

Yes there is. Dogmatically agnostic is effectively saying, "I don't know, nobody else knows and no one can know."

Dogmatically ignostic is saying, "there is no meaningful definition and there cannot be a meaningful definition. "

Ah right, but what I meant is that these positions needn't be. An agnostic can simply say that he doesn't know, precisely in order to avoid dogmatism, without the part that no one can know. Same for ignostic. It's just the avoidance of dogmatism what these positions can do, and others cannot.

In my examples I was never thinking that it's unknowable whether I have two pears or three pears, just that the non-dogmatic position was plain agnosticism about it until further knowledge is provided.

For the ignostic it's not a question that there cannot be a meaningful definition, only that the given one isn't meaningfully defined, logically. In order to give a meaningful definition of the square circle, a meaningful concept has to be referred to, therefore changing the definition.