[jaredgorski]

“the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn’t.”

You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.

[alexithym]

I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic.

I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.