Observation, investigation, reason, and experience are the means by which knowledge is acquired. Contempt prior to investigation, and dismissal of experiences that don’t fit our prejudices, are among the means by which ignorance becomes entrenched.
Yes, I know. Observation, investigation, and experience are all the same thing - apprehending physical reality, which revelations are called evidence once they become evident through the senses. Reason and memory tell us it's significance if we are skilled in the interpretation of evidence, which further experience confirms or disconfirms.
What experience did you think I was dismissing? People's claims of experiencing gods and spirits? If so, I don't dismiss that people have experiences that they understand in that way. I did once myself. I reject their conclusions regarding what they are actually experiencing, which I believe is likely nothing but their own minds. To have a spiritual experience is to have an intuition analogous to experiencing beauty, love, value, or humor. It would also be an unjustified leap of faith to understand any of those experiences as revealing a deity.
Did you want to rebut my comment? "Empiricism is the ONLY path to knowledge. The rest is guessing."
atheism is not properly defined by a lack of belief
That is incorrect, assuming that one specifies the lack of a god belief rather than any and all belief, which is EXACTLY what atheism is. Some like to add modifiers to make sure that stones, dogs, infants, and people that have never heard of gods aren't included. If that's you, we can define atheism as a "no" answer to the question of whether one holds a god belief.
Sloppy, irrational language does not help the conversation. 'Belief' is irrelevant. So then is "unbelief". What is relevant is what is being asserted, and why.
Disagree. Both belief and unbelief can be relevant, and assertions are beliefs - explicitly stated ones.
matter does not "self-organize" into anything.
Incorrect again. Through the transfer of energy and under the influence of fundamental forces in space and time, matter has organized itself into filaments of clusters of galaxies of solar systems comprising subatomic particles assembled into the elements, which has resulted in life and mind arising from that matter, energy, and force
'Design' is the proper word to use for that event scenario.
Not if the word implies conscious intent, which it does as you use it: "this process does
imply the intention of achieving the result." It's one of the theistic apologist's favorite verbal sleights-of-hand -- using words with baggage that implies a deity. Try substituting pattern for design to get the implied agency out of the word. People tend not to think of patterners.
Another is creation (noun). Nope, not a creation if that word implies a conscious creator. So, to eliminate the theistic baggage, we should prefer to refer to it as reality or the universe, not the creation. We don't tend to think of universers, either.
