"I suggest that "Believes about God" would be better
than "Truths about God". Some might firmly believe
that something about God is true, but even they
cannot provide evidence to justify the use of word truth."
Sweet, things just keep getting better and better. atypican, would you agree - that this is better? Although "Beliefs about God" would be better grammatically? I like "working hypothesis about God"' or "theories about God", but "Beliefs about God" probably captures that in a better way?
"I believe that those who support that Mother Nature
has a purpose --- should not be classified as atheists."
It sounds like you're telling someone what they should believe, or what they should call themselves or how they should name their camp?
"Certainly, purpose [is a belief] about God."
It is very frustrating to me that you would say this, because I feel a terrible communication fail is taking place with this. I think I understand what you are saying, and completely agree with it, but it is something very different than what I'm trying to talk about, by saying 'purpose'.
You're talking about some kind of top down, declared by God 'purpose' or what some would call 'intelligent design' and so on. I am talking about something diametrically the opposite of this. I'm am talking about a bottom up purpose, the kind of purpose that would result in a genetic search computer algorithm, and so on. For example, survival of the fittest is better, so that is the bottom up purpose of evolution, to select for such things that are better. I'm talking about the kind of purpose that spontaneously self organizes or is discovered, out of nothing, not something that is directed from above.
How could I better say the above, to avoid this kind of communication fail? I really struggle with this all the time, because this kind of communication fail almost always occurs when I say that.
"I would also caution about too many sub-camps.
I am well aware that there are so many different
believes about God --- that reaching an agreement
will be made very difficult. I, therefore, suggest
that we start thinking about how to merge some of
Absolutely! It's nice to have other stressing this, besides just me. We should always be working to have the most consensus, with the fewest camps possible - to make it easier on the reader - but not too few, as we still want to capture the essence of what everyone believes, without compromise, and the most efficient easy for all to understand camp structure.
Building as much consensus, and having as few camps as possible is what this site is all about. Too many people treat this as some kind of blog, where millions of everyone can have their own camp or statement about what they believe, with a lonely my way or the highway thinking, and they could care less about working or understanding what anyone else, besides themselves believes, or to try to build or work towards a consensus.
"We also need to make clear that we can agree
that we don't agree. I, therefore, encourage
atheists to start articulating their disagreements.
If they cannot --- that automatically means that
they only believe that they are atheists."
It seems to me, that is exactly what we are doing. I like calling myself an Atheist, as I hope no powerful beings ever have to hide from anyone or or any evil. But, I totally hate it because most people classify me with the type of atheists that believe evolution is not progressing towards anything, and other terrible beliefs, like 'my way or the highway' and so on. I like the current structure, because it shows that most atheist are, to me the good kind of atheists, unlike those to me bad kind that don't think evolution is progressing.