How atheists can still believe in God?

[Ben Davis]

Definition of Dogmatic
Atheism doesn't have any dogma but that doesn't mean that some atheists can't be dogmatic according to the above definition. For me, the term "dogmatic atheism" means people claiming that they know for a fact that nobody's definition of God is right.

I was using definition 2 only but I'm happy to agree on your use of definition 1 as well. So I agree that dogmatic atheists (aka antitheists/strong atheists) can exist under definition 1. We'll continue on definition 2 in a moment.

The thought of 'Atheism The Ideology' makes me shudder. Is it at all possible that something like this could develop?

Me too and it's entirely possible; humans show a tendency toward developing and maintaining ideology. For adherents, it seems to be a comfort blanket to avoid having to accept the responsibility of thinking for oneself. Ideologies are most useful as a control mechanism so whenever I see one, I look to the orchestrator.

I don't know much about Atheism+ but there are some interesting posts about it in the forum topic - Atheism+ and similar ideologies. I then found an internet article by someone who wasn't thrilled with the Atheist+ movement - What Atheism Could Have Been. The Atheism+ movement isn't about atheism itself, though. It's how atheists 'should and ought to' take a stand on certain issues.

I completely disagree with their use of the word 'atheism' in their movement. It portrays the idea that 'this is the value set that atheists have'. In fact, it's a mix of humanism, liberalism, libertarianism & socialism and I wish they'd be explicit about that. I agree with their stances on many issues but not with their labelling: it seems dishonest and too much like bandwagoning to me.

The way I see it, the human tendency for hero/celebrity worship is a dangerous weakness because it can be manipulated into a Cult Of Personality. I honestly can't see that happening with atheism but it doesn't have to. All it needs is a few vocal atheists following "the positions of particular authorities" to create a bad impression.

I agree completely.

I tried googling for 'brain mapping religious and non religious experiences' and got various results - it would be helpful if you could find the relevant information because you'll recognise it when you see it...

Apologies, I haven't had a chance to look yet. I'll post sources as soon as I can.

I'm particularly interested in what the 'reportedly similar non-religious experiences' are.

This is why I used inverted commas, I couldn't remember exactly what they were. Off the top of my head, being emotionally moved by art, some group experiences... I need to look it up to give you a proper representation.

True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.

Was this in the same study?

I was generalising a bit here. What I meant was that 'evidence' presented for gods includes external items as well as internal (e.g. physical miracles like healing or bleeding icons). These are not subject to understanding through neurology but require other disciplines (e.g. chemistry, physics, psychology or sociology). However neurology can tell us a little about why people choose to believe that the causes of external 'evidence' are gods.

Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.

And this?

A composite understanding from various studies. If someone is imagining a subject to the point where they're literally fooling their brain into experiencing it, I understand that not only do all the parts light up that are involved in a 'real world' experience but also certain creative areas. Studies in to the effects of hallucinogens spring to mind. Once again, I'll look them up and post.