[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[downbeatplumb]

So, an agnostic has to be aware of the possible options, and reserve opinion; where as, an atheist does not have to be aware of any options???

It's just getting absurd how you are bending descriptions and not considering the possibility that you need a full list of the related terms, and they all have to be reviewed and classified to assure that all aspects of the possible relationships are accounted for.

That is what science would do - and you are no where near doing that.

You can be agnostic and an atheist or theist. 
Being agnostic about something is a statement on knowledge not belief.

For example you can think that it can never be known that a god exists but your default setting is theist therefore you decide to believe in one thinking that this can never be challenged because although you believe in a god you can't think of a way to test it.

So saying you are agnostic is fine, you just have to clarify whether you are an atheist or theist agnostic.

Do you see now?

[Mister Agenda]

The word atheist has the same meaning for someone who has heard of the concept of god and for someone who hasnt heard of the concept god, that is the point. Its a label used to describe the concept of not believing in a god, it is that simple no deeper meaning required. Who cares if thats inconvenient for theists and their bad arguments or for atheists who dont want to use the the label atheist.

Are lizards atheists?

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.

---

Yes, lizards are atheists.  So are rocks, bottles of milk, apples, roadways, roofing tiles, tins of baked beans, pocket calculators, newspapers, steering wheels, onions (pickled as well as fresh), Bibles, insurance companies, hypodermic needles, bicycles, and roast beef sandwiches.

Boru

I've been surprised by how many (supposedly) thinking adults are willing to admit that their conclusions considering the existence of God are the same as those of a lizard. 

"Yes, as an atheist, my beliefs concerning the existence of God are the same as those of a bicycle."

Who are you quoting, Belacqua? Edit: My bad, apparently my eyes glazed over. My apologies.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, it's what the disaffected insist on.

The underlying contention is that a terms consistent application in a context intended to break it yielding a coherent and precisely equivalent statement, accepted as accurate in all respects in either case.... somehow, demonstrates the inadequacy of the term and it's definition.

Bit like claiming that airplanes cant fly, and pointing to them flying through storms as a case example.

[Simon Moon]

Yes, lizards are atheists.  So are rocks, bottles of milk, apples, roadways, roofing tiles, tins of baked beans, pocket calculators, newspapers, steering wheels, onions (pickled as well as fresh), Bibles, insurance companies, hypodermic needles, bicycles, and roast beef sandwiches.

Boru

Absolutely Hilarious. I have been monitoring atheist forums for 18 years, and this is definitely the outrageous extension of the erroneous definition for atheism that I have been looking for to present in my dissertation concerning the need for a reliable knowledge classification system. I would not have been able to generate such a possible claim for fear that atheists would accuse me of straw man, or something that I could not defend.

Thank You.

While I disagree with you on almost every point and definition you have posted here, I will agree with you on this.

I do not consider anything that is unable to cognitively understand and evaluate the god question, an atheist. Maybe nontheist would be a better description of a lizard. I guess I am in the minority on the forum with regards to this.

But that does not mean, just because I agree with you on this, any of your other definitions are correct.

Atheists are still people that are unconvinced gods exist, full stop.
Agnostics are people that take the position, that it is unknown (or possibly unknowable) whether gods exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

If atheist isn't a good description, nontheist wouldn't be either - for the same reason in both cases. The ist there at the end of both.

The disaffected know this, ofc.

More academically, a nontheist can still believe in gods. They're not nondeists, after all. There are mounds and mounds of nontheists who believe in gods, contemporary paganism is chock full. For these people, the terms theist and atheist are both inaccurate. We don't think about them much when we think about these things - cultural bias automatically equates god belief with abrahamic theism or an equivalent.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not a conclusion, but a condition.

And it would be more accurately expressed as, 'The state of my non-belief in God is exactly the same as that of a bicycle.'

Boru

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

One might say that a newborn is atheist by default, but an adult is atheist by conscious choice (in most cases).

Boru

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I'm holding a chicken, and we're occupying the same square foot of floorspace, does that make me a chicken? Does it make the chicken a man?

[The Architect Of Fate]

One might say that a newborn is atheist by default, but an adult is atheist by conscious choice (in most cases).

Boru

Nope he's an atheist by lack of compulsion to be a theist

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

One can be a thinking person and be passively uncompelled to a position

[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).

[Mr.wizard]

Saying "a lizard isn't a republican and neither am I" is not equating the thought process of humans and lizards, it is merely stating the fact that the person and the lizard are not republicans. The lizard may not be able to comprehend the concept of Republicans but it doesn't change the fact that the lizard is not a republican.