[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

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"?

"Psychological," would have probably been a better descriptor. Your example of atheists claiming to think like an infant on all things is kind of wht I am trying to describe.

Most atheist will argue something to the effect that they do not believe, because their brain function does not compute the evidence that theists argue; and theists will argue something to the effect that they believe because their brain directs them to believe. Neither side is accepting that it is all based on doctrine - ideas that are passed on to others.

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!

Well, it is what is left in Metaphysics when science answers the theories - we need to list all of the things in an order - it is called Ontology, or knowledge classification. It is very similar to library classification - the Dewey Decimal System for organizing the subjects of knowledge for organizing the books on the shelves.

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." 

Then the think tank is not secular it is in pursuit of advancing a specific doctrine.

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

Am I understanding you better now?

I think a secular organization means that it is organized in such a manner that it gathers as much diversity as possible and aggregates its agenda accordingly, usually solutions to problems.