An Atheist's Creed

[lucaspa]

I think I have fulfilled your request to describe the physical (neurological and endocrinological) manifestations of romantic love and also shown how it is distinguishable from other phenomena like friendship and lust.

 

I agree. Given the individual's prior statement about his feelings, the studies can detect neurological differences. (BTW, I don't see a study looking at maternal love, yet you stated that people could tell the difference.) However, none of the studies have looked at individuals that they did not know the prior state of "love" and determined whether they were, in reality, in love, did they?

 

This gets back to some of the limits of science, as described by Futuyma:

"It is important to recognize that not all "facts" are susceptible to scientific investigation, simply because some observations and experiences are entirely personal. I cannot prove that someone loves his or her child. The emotions that any individual claims to have are not susceptible to scientific documentation, because they cannot be independently verified by other observers. In other words, science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment. Many human experiences and concerns are not objective, and so do not fall within the realms of science." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution, 1995, p 167.

 

You say "This in itself should allow for prediction and replication." But does it? We need the studies taking unknown people and determining whether they are "in love" and, if so, which particular person.

 

I simply said that it resonated,

 

By which you mean that it coincides with your own faith? Or does it "resonate" in that you agree that what he states as "fact" you also think are "fact"?

 

IMO this creed attempts to make atheism more than it is when it is really nothing more than a description of people that are not theist. Atheism is not about the dogma or belief systems of atheists so there is no need for a creed.

 

Atheism can't stay as "nothing more than a description of people that are not theist". I'll give Singham credit for realizing that.

 

At a minimum, atheism must make the positive creeds:

 

"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.

 

I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die,

 

...the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws."

 

The first 2 are necessary to be an atheist. If you think that Butler's hypothesis is accurate, you can't be an atheist. The second is a logical creed from the other two.

 

This one:

"I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural."

 

may be an essential creed. Or you may view it as a necessary rationalization to reach the other 2 creeds.

 

This one:

"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma." is simply untrue. Singham is not a "free-thinker"; he has sold himself to a particular dogma and will not allow his curiosity or any knowledge to go anywhere but atheism. In fact, his rationalization above specifically denies such knowledge. He is afraid of contradiction atheist dogma.

[DrP]

At a minimum, atheism must make the positive creeds:

 

"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.

 

I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die,

 

...the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws."

 

I compleatly disagree - the word as currently defined PURLEY refers to wether or not the person belives in a God or not.

 

The first 2 are necessary to be an atheist.

No they are not.

 

This one:

"I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural."

 

may be an essential creed. Or you may view it as a necessary rationalization to reach the other 2 creeds.

 

This one:

"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma." is simply untrue. Singham is not a "free-thinker"; he has sold himself to a particular dogma and will not allow his curiosity or any knowledge to go anywhere but atheism. In fact, his rationalization above specifically denies such knowledge. He is afraid of contradiction atheist dogma.

 

What about Buddism say? They do not belive in God. They do however have a set of defined beliefs. They are Atheists.

 

 

What about people who believe in re-incarnation? They do not belive in God (although some may do) so they are Atheists - they do however believe that there is more to life after death, which goes against your creed.

 

 

The word as defined only describes wether one believes in a god or not. NOTHING else.

[iNow]

By which you mean that it coincides with your own faith? Or does it "resonate" in that you agree that what he states as "fact" you also think are "fact"?

My words are right here in this thread, so please let the reader determine for themselves. Regardless, your dichotomy is false.

[doG]

Atheism can't stay as "nothing more than a description of people that are not theist". I'll give Singham credit for realizing that.

 

Like Singham you are trying to append the definition of atheist. Do not confuse skepticism with atheism. Atheism is simply about a lack of belief in God and has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in anything else. It is not a disbelief in ghosts or spirits and it is not a belief in the scientific method or natures laws. It quite literally means not·theist, nothing more, nothing less.

[Edtharan]

I would say that there is one line that really is an athiest's creed:

I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.

I think that is athiesm in a nutshell.

[john5746]

I would say that there is one line that really is an athiest's creed:

 

I think that is athiesm in a nutshell.

 

Yep, I think many atheists are confused about this as well. They have maybe secular beliefs about humanity and morals and assume it is part of atheism and expect other atheists to agree.

 

Of course, the person who made this creed said that it was only his creed and that he happens to be an atheist.

[foodchain]

What about Buddism say? They do not belive in God. They do however have a set of defined beliefs. They are Atheists.

 

The word as defined only describes wether one believes in a god or not. NOTHING else.

 

It depends on the particular sect you are looking at. If memory serves original Buddhist thought evolved from more or less a personal philosophy that did not have much to do with the super natural. It though if you are speaking for instance of Buddhism like Zen or Chan then you find yourself quickly dealing with supernatural aspects. Though it may not be a one single sky god(LoLzor's) its still pretty much the same line of thinking.

[doG]

What about Buddism say? They do not belive in God. They do however have a set of defined beliefs. They are Atheists.

 

Their beliefs are rooted in their Buddhism. Their atheism says only that they are not theist.

 

I personally am a skeptical agnostic atheist humanist. My various beliefs are rooted in my skepticism, my agnosticism and my humanism. My atheist value merely says that I am not theist.