what is the most important aspect of the interaction between belivers and non believers

[LostOne4Ever]

263. And I strongly disagree with that

Your definition of atheist goes against all the several sources that I provided as well as my own experiences as an atheist. Not just the AA, but the FFRF, the oxford online dictionary, wikipedia, and religious tolerance.org agree with the definition both AC and I provided. The last one went into great detail about the definition and the history of the word.

I specifically made sure to say that I was only talking about atheists and not agnostics. I identify as an implicit atheist and I would reply "maybe." If someone who identifies as an agnostic would also say "maybe" thats cool. It does not make me any less of an atheist.

I am a living counter example to your claim and I suspect so is Atheist Crusader and just about every regular in the A/A forum. If you want to create a poll there be my guest and we can see.

Further, not all of those sources were from AA. I also gave you one from the oxford dictionary (considered the premier English language dictionary) and wikipedia for example.. Here are some more.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/denial
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/deny?q=deny

In particular:

A statement that something is not true: his pious denials of responsibility

No where does it say false. Not true and false are different things. Much like not-guilty and innocent are different things.

You quoted me and went off on an intellectual tangent that had nothing to do with my quote. If an atheist answers the proposition in the negative, then the other 'is' statement follows - they have rejected the byproducts of answering it to the affirmative. Those are religion, dogma, ritual, etc. There is no 'ought' involved. If they accept those and practice them then there is a psychological incongruity.

Lack of belief in god(s) is a lack of belief in gods. There is no god does not lead to "one should/could/ought/etc to oppose dogma." There is no second is statement in there. There IS no god. One opposes dogma. How does one derive the latter from the forumer? Saying there is no god say nothing on dogma. Maybe there is another reason to oppose/support dogma? Lets say its because one should not be forced to follow rules based on a false belief. Again that is not derived off the "is" statement. It is derived from a goal. Not to be forced to forced to obey false beliefs.

If we accept even the most basic definition of 'belief' as presented on Wikipedia - "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true" - then absolutely atheists, like everyone else, definitely have beliefs. They may or may not overlap with theists and religious followers. They may or may not be the same as other atheists or agnostics. I did not say that atheism is a religion or a belief system. But to claim that atheists have no belief is bullshit. I will add that New Atheism is definitely developing into a belief system with tenets, organizations, 'prophets', etc. That is a fascinating new phenomena to me particularly since it was not in existence when I was a younger man.

Not holding any position is not holding a position to be true. This only backs up what I was saying about lack of belief not being either an affirmation or negation of your proposition.

Everyone holds some beliefs, but they are not atheist beliefs or based on atheism. That was the argument AC made:

Secular humanism has beliefs. Secular paganism has beliefs. Etc.
Atheism is a LACK of religious belief. Nothing more.

To say he claimed atheist have NO beliefs at all is misrepresenting what he actually said.

They can be based on humanism or objectivism or liberalism or whatever. But they are not based on atheism. Atheism is atheism. Its simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic (some forms of Buddhism). That does not mean that religion is a part of atheism itself. There is no big book of atheism.

I think you and Starboard Track are confusing the word atheist/atheism with the word secular. A belief is an abstract concept. It is not a person, and it is not sentient. It can not think or believe or disbelieve anything. It can not be an atheist. It can, however, be secular.

I don't know about or care what "New Atheism" is doing, but atheism is the same as it has always been. "New Atheism" does not change that.

In that regards, Starboard Tack is dead on and AtheistCrusader is wrong. Belief is a word like love. It has a variety of meanings and context is important. I love my mother. I love my girlfriend. Both use the word 'love' and if I loved my mother like I do my girlfriend, well...... Atheists are 'non-believers' and theists are 'believers' and what they 'believe' and don't 'believe' in is the same.

Maybe belief has a variety of meaning but that is beside the point. That is because lack of belief has only one meaning: Not having a belief.

Atheist are non-believers.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/non-?q=non

Expressing negation or absence

All of us lack believe that there is a god, and some of us don't believe that there is not a god either. We are atheist, not intheist after all.

Yet each individual member of each group also has a set of beliefs and knowledge that unite them in their definable term. And beyond that further, each individual also has beliefs and knowledge influenced by a variety of experiences, knowledge, and cultural influences. So to say with absolute certainty that atheists have no beliefs is just bullshit. Sorry, it is.

Atheists don't have a set of beliefs and knowledge that unite us. We are united in our LACK of belief. Specifically our lack of belief in god/gods. Nothing more. And again, neither I nor AC said we had NO beliefs. That is a misrepresentation of what was said.