[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Belacqua]

Lack of belief or unbelief is a synonym for disbelief, they are not two different definitions. 

This is a little fuzzy. It's another case where clarifying definitions is good.

Merriam Webster says that 

Definition of disbelief

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

while

Definition of unbelief

: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith

To me these are different. The former means active rejection, the latter is skepticism or mere failure to accept. At the same time, M-W lists them as synonyms. So we can use whatever definition you prefer. 

You want to limit the definition of "atheism" to simple lack. David Mitchell uses it to mean an active denial. When you are emperor, you can put him in jail. 

I didn't know you were saying about atheism, this is what you said "I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain."

Yep, that's what I said. 

Atheism is a lack, but it is not a lack in the way that stones lack belief. It is a lack based on and maintained by other beliefs. It is not a simple pure nothing-but lack, which has no need to be defended. It is a position maintained about certain truth claims, made possible by different truth claims.

[Mr.wizard]

Yes I have a lack of tolerance for arguments about the definition of atheism.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Atheism is a lack, but it is not a lack in the way that stones lack belief. It is a lack based on and maintained by other beliefs.

No it's freaking not 

 It is not a simple pure nothing-but lack, 

It doesn't need to be to not be maintaind  by beliefs 

which has no need to be defended. 

Neither is the position we hold 

It is a position maintained about certain truth claims, made possible by different truth claims.

No it's not

[Belacqua]

Yes I have a lack of tolerance for arguments about the definition of atheism.

Well, if you're that committed to your position then I guess we can't discuss it. 

When you're emperor all will be settled.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheism only makes one claim to truth, Bel, and it's a claim about a persons status of belief.

That's it, that's all.

It's not even a proper claim about gods....it's about people, namely ourselves.

[Mr.wizard]

Lack of belief or unbelief is a synonym for disbelief, they are not two different definitions. 

This is a little fuzzy. It's another case where clarifying definitions is good.

Merriam Webster says that 

Definition of disbelief

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

while

Definition of unbelief

: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith

To me these are different. The former means active rejection, the latter is skepticism or mere failure to accept. At the same time, M-W lists them as synonyms. So we can use whatever definition you prefer. 

You want to limit the definition of "atheism" to simple lack. David Mitchell uses it to mean an active denial. When you are emperor, you can put him in jail. 

I didn't know you were saying about atheism, this is what you said "I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain."

Yep, that's what I said. 

Atheism is a lack, but it is not a lack in the way that stones lack belief. It is a lack based on and maintained by other beliefs. It is not a simple pure nothing-but lack, which has no need to be defended. It is a position maintained about certain truth claims, made possible by different truth claims.

Merriam Webster also lists non-belief, unbelief, and disbelief as synonyms. 

Mitchell portrays atheism as knowing there are know gods, that's a misrepresentation of atheism. He can use Atheism to mean bananas for all I care but he is misrepresenting the concept.

Lack of belief in something does not require belief in something else. For instance if you say to me god created the stars, I could reject the claim based simply on the lack of evidence, I don't need to believe in an alternative explanation for the stars.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are siamese cats, and there are american shorthairs. David Mitchells atheists are siamese cats. Describing a siamese cat as though this were a definition of american shorthairs..or of cats...would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?

[Belacqua]

Merriam Webster also lists non-belief, unbelief, and disbelief as synonyms. 

Right, that's what I said.

Mitchell portrays atheism as knowing there are know gods, that's a misrepresentation of atheism. He can use Atheism to mean bananas for all I care but he is misrepresenting the concept.

He uses it in the way that some people use it. You use it a different way. You don't want him to use it that way. 

When you are emperor you can put him in jail.

Lack of belief in something does not require belief in something else. 

In many cases I'm sure that's true.

When we hear and evaluate claims, however, we do so based on criteria of judgment. Thinking people who reject claims have reasons.

It may be that lots of people reject claims based purely on prejudice or force of habit. That's not something to be proud of, and I hope that this is not the case with most atheists. 

Rejecting the claim that God made the stars requires, for thinking people, a number of things we hold to be true. These include, but are not limited to:

~ What the word "God" means.
~ What stars are.
~ How stars are generally thought to be formed. 

If you claim there is no evidence for such a position, then you already have beliefs about what constitutes evidence.

If you reject the claim without having any of those things in your mind then I think you're just allowing it to bounce off your skull for no reason. It's better to have reasons.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In many cases I'm sure that's true.

In this case it's true 

When we hear and evaluate claims, however, we do so based on criteria of judgment. Thinking people who reject claims have reasons.

Not required for atheism 

It may be that lots of people reject claims based purely on prejudice or force of habit. That's not something to be proud of, and I hope that this is not the case with most atheists. 

It's not

Rejecting the claim that God made the stars requires, for thinking people, a number of things we hold to be true. These include, but are not limited to:

~ What the word "God" means.
~ What stars are.
~ How stars are generally thought to be formed. 

None of the above 

If you claim there is no evidence for such a position, then you already have beliefs about what constitutes evidence.

Nope it only requires the theist can't back up their claims .No previous criteria required .

If you reject the claim without having any of those things in your mind then I think you're just allowing it to bounce off your skull for no reason. It's better to have reasons.

Nope

---

Theist -God created stars 

Atheist -I have reason to accept that idea .Even if he atheist knows nothing about stars or the definition of god or has any episolomolgy at all it's valid

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Not all of the 12,000,000 members have reviewed the arguments. But you are recognizing a possible faction, and you are revealing a lack of tolerance.

Why should he be tolerant ?

Why should I submit to his inadequate arguments?