[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Belacqua]

That is rejection of subsequent (faction/religion) doctrine. Adult atheists are not disbelieving because of unexplainable physiological aspects; which is what atheists think atheism is - a non-belief thingy.

I confess I don't understand you here....

It's true that atheists (to remain atheists) reject various things. And I guess you could call these "subsequent" in that they are heard later, after our main ideas are formed. 

But I'm unclear on "unexplainable physiological aspects." Like brain structure? Or do you mean "psychological" instead of "physiological"? 

But I agree with you that for thinking adults, atheism is more than simple non-belief. Because we have standards of judgment we use to reject religious claims, and these form the structure of what we hold to be true about the world. So if we use the word "belief" in its most basic sense -- "that which I hold to be true" -- then atheists' rejection of religion is based on beliefs. 

(I'm aware that some people use "belief" to mean "things which people hold to be true based on little or no evidence," but the most basic definition is just "what I think is true.") 

I meant to describe the definitions of the words significant to atheists discussions as being used incorrectly, and that that forms atheist dogma.

It's true that any group is capable of group-think, or unexamined assumptions. And this may well be true of the kind of atheist that frequents sites like this one. What you say may be true, but I'm not understanding the details of your claim yet.

Atheists are somewhat in a state of confusion, because of the semantic errors that I am trying to correct.

This is probably true of all humans, and clearing up semantic errors is a large part of philosophy! Go for it!

That is not what I am doing. I am suggesting that it is identically to "unbiased." The popular description that atheists use suggests that it is identically to "non-religious."

OK, maybe. If by "unbiased" you mean that a school or a hospital (for example) operates free of religious tenets. That would be "unbiased" in a certain way. 

Though secular institutions could be biased in other ways. For example, a secular economic think tank could be biased toward a certain kind of economic policy -- Keynesian as opposed to something else. So I wouldn't want to say that "secular" always means only "unbiased." 

Maybe "secular" means "uninfluenced by religious principles." Which is pretty close to what I'm saying. 

Am I understanding you better now?