[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Belacqua]

I agree that they are not (the suffix '-ist' in atheist connotes a person having an interest in what precedes it). OTH, they certainly are not theists; perhaps the term 'nominal atheist' would apply.

[...] 

How does it follow that if a lizard is not a Republican and I am not a Republican that my conclusions on the Republican party are the same as those of a lizard? The lizard doesn't have any conclusions, it is unaware of the Republican party, I am not a Republican because I am aware of the Republican party. Yet neither the lizard nor I are Republicans.

Yes, I agree with you here. 

A thinking human's conclusions, or ongoing beliefs, are not the same as the condition of a lack of beliefs in non-thinking things. It's an absurdity to say that because lizards aren't Republicans and neither am I, then my political views are like a lizard's.

I was thinking that when I walk into a hardware store, not a single item there accepts that the theory of evolution is true! How horrible to be in a place where no one accepts this basic fact about the world! 

I'm being facetious about the hardware store, of course, but I think this is about the same as claiming that bicycles lack religious belief in the same way that I do.

I've used the term "trivially atheist" for babies and other things that don't have concepts, but "nominally atheist" works too.

---

If you want to assert that you're not a thinking person, that's your option.

The state of my belief in leprechauns is the same as a bicycle's: I don't have a state of belief in leprechauns. That doesn't mean that my reasons for not believing in leprechauns are the same as a bicyle's. I would think this is self-evident.

I'd also like to distinguish between a lack that is a conclusion, and a lack that comes from the inability to have concepts. 

I lack a belief in God. This is due to a number of things that I hold to be true (=beliefs). 

Once I have reached this conclusion, the beliefs don't go away or become irrelevant. It's not as if making a decision on a matter reduces me to a mindless condition like a bicycle. 

The system or web of beliefs that I have maintain my lack of belief in a god. This is an essential, rather than a temporal chain. I believe, for example, that science tells us about the natural world and revelation doesn't. Because I hold this to be true, it contributes to my lack of belief in God. The ongoing belief in what constitutes good evidence maintains my ongoing lack of belief in God. 

The conclusion concerning God doesn't switch off the web or system of beliefs that I have and need in order to remain a thinking person who holds certain things to be true (or likely).