[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Which definition do you think would be more adverse to protecting religious doctrine?

Theism is belief in God

Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests a supernatural dimension of reality

[The Grand Nudger]

The vast majority of posts in a loonthread "go nowhere". We still post in them. Personally, I feed trolls because they don't seem to be able to help themselves. Like a goldfish, they just eat and eat and eat until they explode.

What concern? What problem? It's not impossible for the definitions to be unclear or complicated - but you certainly haven't given me any reason to think that they were.

There are people who don't believe in gods. They're atheists.

There are people who do believe in personal intervening gods. They're theists.

The fact that we call ourselves atheists instead of adeists is a consequence of the deference you mention above..but even that doesn't change that the terms and their definitions are accurate descriptions of a group of people who do and don't believe in the items to which the terms refer.

Who cares which would be more adverse to any given thing?

Theism is the belief in a personal intervening god. If you believe in a personal intervening god, but not an ontological doctrine that suggests a supernatural reality dimension of reality, you're still a theist.

-and you're not the only theist who thinks that way.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Which definition do you think would be more adverse to protecting religious doctrine?

Theism is belief in God

Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests a supernatural dimension of reality

Either one could do that 

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Which definition do you think would be more adverse to protecting religious doctrine?

Theism is belief in God

Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests a supernatural dimension of reality

Either one could do that 

"Theism is belief in God," protects the theist religious doctrine, and atheists' dogma

Defining theism to be an ontological doctrine challenges the religious doctrine that belief and knowledge is magically installed into the soul.

[The Architect Of Fate]

"Theism is belief in God," protects the theist religious doctrine, and atheists' dogma

Theism yes ."Atheist dogma" no 

Defining theism to be an ontological doctrine challenges the religious doctrine that belief and knowledge is magically installed into the soul.

Nope

[Belacqua]

"Theism is belief in God," protects the theist religious doctrine, and atheists' dogma

Defining theism to be an ontological doctrine challenges the religious doctrine that belief and knowledge is magically installed into the soul.

I think I'm finally beginning to get a handle on your position here. Though I may still be wrong....

Some people are using "theist" and "atheist" purely to describe two states of belief. With our without. 

If I'm reading you right, you feel this points too much to individual belief and fails to focus on the fact that the theists are subscribed to some larger doctrine. That theism doesn't begin and end with a personal belief, but necessarily entails a system, a doctrine, an ontology, etc. 

It may be that in many cases the same is true of atheists. Certainly the atheists who form the majority on this forum seem to hold very similar views, to the point that we could almost identify a doctrine or ontology. 

(I've been arguing all along that the atheists who post here, while lacking belief, have more than a lack -- they necessarily have some system or web of beliefs as well. Whether this rises to the level of doctrine or not I'm not sure.) 

Is this a fair reading of your views? I'm genuinely curious.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Is this a fair reading of your views? I'm genuinely curious.

Yes. I recognize some of the descriptors that you are using may be bridging a gap from my descriptions.

. . . this points too much to individual belief and fails to focus on the fact that the theists are subscribed to some larger doctrine. That theism doesn't begin and end with a personal belief, but necessarily entails a system, a doctrine, an ontology, etc. 

The dictionary is basically the doctrinaire for humanists (atheists). The list of words are used to describe reality, reason, and communicate ideas into practical applications, whether it be tangible or abstract.

---

I've been arguing all along that the atheists who post here, while lacking belief, have more than a lack -- they necessarily have some system or web of beliefs as well. Whether this rises to the level of doctrine or not I'm not sure.

I'm claiming to have identified some of the erroneous doctrine, and that means it is dogma - atheist dogma. Full Stop! 

[Mister Agenda]

Not all atheists are humanists, and a theist can be a humanist just as well as any atheist.  Why would a person call themself a humanist if they weren't, just because they didn't believe in gods?  We've already been over this.

Can you explain some problem with the definition of the word theist, or atheist...or not?

No, I cannot do that - I just spend time writing these post for fun, genius. 

Shits and giggles - that's all it is to me 

A serious thread, is it?

---

Either one could do that 

"Theism is belief in God," protects the theist religious doctrine, and atheists' dogma

Defining theism to be an ontological doctrine challenges the religious doctrine that belief and knowledge is magically installed into the soul.

What's the dogma of atheism again?

---

One thing that has often irritated me is how much some folks complain of our having a belief system who can't get past one belief I don't have. Sure I have a belief system. It isn't based on atheism, it eventually led me to atheism. But when I say I don't believe in God and you get wrapped up in what my actual beliefs (I know some consider it a dirty word but it just means considering something true or correct and applies to facts as well as spooky crap) might be because you (royal you) think I'm being cagey about what I believe. You haven't even gotten around to what I believe because we're still hung up on the word 'atheist'.

One day I hope when getting asked if you're an atheist and you say yes the usual follow up question will not involve a treatise on the semantics and etymology of the word atheist or the moral and philosophical implications; but something more interesting like: 'Oh, how did you come to be an atheist?'. Because that actually tells you something about the person you're talking to.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The dictionary is basically the doctrinaire for humanists (atheists). The list of words are used to describe reality, reason, and communicate ideas into practical applications, whether it be tangible or abstract.

No

I'm claiming to have identified some of the erroneous doctrine, and that means it is dogma - atheist dogma. Full Stop!  

And this claim fails

[Belacqua]

Sure I have a belief system. It isn't based on atheism, it eventually led me to atheism.

I can't speak for Prof. Lunaphiles, but this is all I've been saying. Atheists have beliefs. The beliefs make the atheism possible. 

From some people, I get the impression that when they insist on atheism being lack and only lack they do not want to acknowledge that they have beliefs in this way. They insist that it is a default mode, and that it is proper to apply the term to icy rocks far out in deep space. To me, this comes across as avoidance. 

We atheists also have beliefs, and when discussing our atheism it is relevant to address and perhaps defend them. 

 But when I say I don't believe in God and you get wrapped up in what my actual beliefs (I know some consider it a dirty word but it just means considering something true or correct and applies to facts as well as spooky crap) might be because you (royal you) think I'm being cagey about what I believe. You haven't even gotten around to what I believe because we're still hung up on the word 'atheist'. 

One day I hope when getting asked if you're an atheist and you say yes the usual follow up question will not involve a treatise on the semantics and etymology of the word atheist or the moral and philosophical implications; but something more interesting like: 'Oh, how did you come to be an atheist?'. Because that actually tells you something about the person you're talking to.

I agree with all of this. But I think part of the fault lies with those atheists who deny that their beliefs are relevant to their atheism. They are the ones hung up on the word and its simple declaration of lack. If I say, "OK, you're an atheist, but what beliefs allow your atheism?" The response is likely to be that the answer is irrelevant. They insist that they are atheists as stones are atheist. To me, the beliefs that support atheism are actually the most important points.