I would have to disagree with the bolded part, and pretty much everything that follows. The atheists I've met can be as rabidly zealous as any "believer". I know atheists like to see themselves as calm and rational and oh so above the emotion of believers but from my vantage point is looks like they are only fooling themselves.
Of course, being rabidly zealous about one's atheistic belief has
nothing to do with the bolded part or anything after it.
What is the dogma that follows a conviction of atheism? What other absolute convictions coincide with acceptance of absolute conviction in atheism?
Perhaps you misread my post?
Not being 1 I don't know what is typical beyond the assclowns I run across on message boards that seem to think it's their duty to sling mud at believers at every opportunity. Maybe you've met Illusion/Vinnybus... (more and more I'm thinking Illusion is a really apt name).
But that aside, I see atheism as a religious belief. I'm sure if I sat down with a calm, rational atheist (and I will if I ever meet 1) there are sorts of other beliefs that flow from their "religion".
I consider myself a calm, rational atheist. I think referring to atheism as a theological position is more appropriate than a religious belief. Calling it a religious belief is a bit like saying the absence of symptoms is a form of disease.
Speaking for myself, when the realization that I was an atheist set in, that realization provided me no guidance whatsover on other aspects of my life. Each and every part of my life was approached and engaged without reference to my lack of belief as a guide. Some might say that approaching events from a naturalistic, self-contained perspective is a conviction that follows from non-belief, but I disagree. Such an approach could just as easily lead to non-belief as flow from it. Furthermore, there are atheists who do not completely deny any supernaturalism. Some Buddhists would fall into this category.
Any theistic conviction that has a practical effect on one's life, has those effects that come directly from their conviction. Take something as simple as prayer. Some form of prayer is present in almost any religion. It is usually an appeal of some sort to a god. The conviction that this communication could be heard by a deity is one that can only be rational alongside a conviction that such a being exists. Is there an atheistic equivalent? Not praying? No, people operate constantly without praying. Many theists go through the entire day not praying. On the other hand, it would be absolutely irrational for an atheist to pray. Prayer is a conviction and behavior that flows from theism.
Think of it this way:
Imagine you are hungry and trying to decide what to get to eat. Let's say there are many different restaurants in town, plus one super grocery store. Now, you have a lot of choices. There are a variety of restaurants, and in each one is a variety of menu options. On the other hand, you could go pick up supplies at the super grocery store and prepare your own dinner.
Now, if you choose a restaurant, by virtue of that choice you limit your further options. The types of food and methods of preparation are limited by the menu of that restaurant. Perhaps the menu has exactly what you want and that's fine. But it is undeniable that there is a certain limitation accepted once a restaurant has been chosen. The choices of possible meals flow from the particular restaurant upon which you decided.
However, if you choose to go the super grocery store, there are no limitations on type of food nor method of preparation. To be sure, one may choose a certain food and method of preparation that was available at one of the restaurants, but the shopper is not limited to what is on the menu at any particular restaurant nor even limited only to foods that are in restaurants.
By not choosing a restaurant, you avoid artificially limiting your choices. Whatever meal you prepare, the decision does not come from the fact that you did not choose a restaurant. Perhaps your meal decision is based on your knowledge of cooking. You might say "wait- what if someone only knew how to prepare one dish. Wouldn't choosing the grocery store limit them to that dish, when going to the restaurant would give them more options?" No. It is true that such a person would be forced to prepare that one dish, but it is not the choice of going to the grocery that determined the dish they prepare, it is the limitation of their cooking knowledge that has forced them to prepare that dish.
You see, going to the grocery does not inhibit choices, even if those who go are limited. However, regardless of one's cooking skill, your choices are limited by the menu if you choose a restaurant.
Not believing in god is like not choosing a restaurant. One's personal attitudes and abilities may come into play in developing a worldview, but nothing follows from simply not believing. The food represents our internal and external interactions with our world. The outcome is limited by choosing an intermediary like religious belief, just like a restaurant is an intermediary that limits our choice of meals.
I and others like me, happen to prefer to prepare our own meals. It does require some extra effort, success may depend upon the culinary skill of the shopper, and still it may not have the presentation or perhaps even taste of dishes served at some of the finer restaurants. But there is a certain satisfaction in preparing it yourself. More importantly, you know with certainty the quality of the ingredients and the sanitary condition of the environment in which it was prepared (not to mention that you're confident a waiter or chef hasn't fouled your dish).
