Sofia (40C3) on Nostr: religions are definitionally dogmatic, because that is how people use the term, i ...

religions are definitionally dogmatic, because that is how people use the term, i never said it is how religion *should* be defined, i said it is how it *is*

and you're very free to point out even a single point in which i "twisted" an argument, whatever you even mean by that

not to mention that the last paragraph quite clearly demonstrates that you do not know the very basics someone needs in order to discuss dogma in the first place, of course dogma can change, dogma is simply a belief about a non-evident matter (absolute certainty is certainly an example of dogma, but only because there is no level of evidence that warrants absolute certainty, making it inherently non-evident)

from Sextus Empiricus' *Outlines of Pyrrhonism*

> But when we assert that he does not dogmatize, we use
"dogma" in the sense, which others give it, of assent to one of the non-evident matters investigated by the sciences. For the Pyrrhonist assents to nothing that is non-evident. Not even in putting forward the Skeptic slogans about non-evident things does he dogmatize [...]