In an ideal world atheists would be apatheiststs (?)

[Iti oj]

Apatheist makes sense as a term ours meaning is self evident.

What of ignostic?

 

[LuisDantas]

In an ideal world people would be naturalist and the term atheist would not exist because there would be no theistic claim to reject.

Precisely.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good question; and I agree. Our pure reliance on science has definitely made us cold, especially in spiritual affairs. I'm not saying we should live without science and deny logic, but if you're skeptical towards spirituality and religion it's only fair for that person to be just as skeptical towards science.

It may be fair, but it leads to very contrasting results. Science is supposed to be skeptical to begin with, after all.

 

[Brinne]

It may be fair, but it leads to very contrasting results. Science is supposed to be skeptical to begin with, after all.

Of course. However there are those who will blindly accept things (on both sides of the scales) without looking into why or how these things are accepted and work. If that makes any sense.

Basically, don't feel like you can't explore things for yourself and try things just because one theory states that you are wrong.

 

[Willamena]

In an ideal world people would be naturalist and the term atheist would not exist because there would be no theistic claim to reject.

That's maltheism.

 

[Iti oj]

Why can't I be allowed to compare the two? I'm saying blind reliance and complete submission either way is bad. If I see something in a science textbook that seems wrong to me I'm going to search out my own answers. Are you saying I should have blind adherence to established theories and not try and see for myself if they're actually true or not? Free thinking is a good thing, challenging theories and established science is how we've made it this far in the scientific community mind you.

Ty's
That's not what you originally said. And science questions its self, that's why it works, nothing is set in stone.

But to.compare disbelief in spiritual things to rejecting science is simply unfair.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course. However there are those who will blindly accept things (on both sides of the scales) without looking into why or how these things are accepted and work. If that makes any sense.

It makes sense, but it matters little for science. So-called "skepticism" about matters such as climate change and evolution is ultimately just denial.

Basically, don't feel like you can't explore things for yourself and try things just because one theory states that you are wrong.

Definitely... but then again, that is science's approach to begin with!

 

[Brinne]

Ty's
That's not what you originally said. And science questions its self, that's why it works, nothing is set in stone.

But to.compare disbelief in spiritual things to rejecting science is simply unfair.

Not really what I was comparing, I said skepticism simply can be applied to one side without being applied to the other. Basically, if you're skeptic of religion you should be skeptic of science and vice versa; in essence don't believe things blindly.

 

[Iti oj]

That's maltheism.

I don't see how that's so, that statement never suggested god is out to get us.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really what I was comparing, I said skepticism simply can be applied to one side without being applied to the other. Basically, if you're skeptic of religion you should be skeptic of science and vice versa; in essence don't believe things blindly.

More to the point, it is not possible to make true science without skepticism. Never mind the misguided misappropriations of the word by certain faiths.

 

[Iti oj]

Not really what I was comparing, I said skepticism simply can be applied to one side without being applied to the other. Basically, if you're skeptic of religion you should be skeptic of science and vice versa; in essence don't believe things blindly.

Like I said predictive and explanatory power.

 

[Iti oj]

More to the point, it is not possible to make true science without skepticism. Never mind the misguided misappropriations of the word by certain faiths.

Well said.

 

[Caligula]

The only ethical position is to base actions, behavior, and decisions, on the here and now, rather that postulates regarding even our best attempts to understand that which cannot be known.

As you may have guessed, I agree with most of what you said.

Regarding the quote... I would take this even a step further.
Suppose that I find out of a god's existance: tomorrow he reveals himself by extrordinary means and tells people that, if it wasn't for him, the Universe and humanity would never exist. 14 billion years ago he created the singularity and, 4 billion years ago, the primordial soup from which we evolved. Pick any god you want for my story.

I would probably raise my hat and applaud him. That information would certainly add a lot to my knowledge. For a while, I would have a lot to see on media, to discuss with family, friends or random people.

Great! If that is the only way he decides to interact with me/us, I would not change one bit what I am already doing in terms of relationship with nature (human beings are part of it). I would never praise a god, especialy if he demands such a thing (if it's by blackmail then I will passionately hate him). I will not force myself to love him or hate him. That's a nonsense. I don't want eternal life; I want to no longer exist after I die.
I don't care what he decides to do with me, at any point, as long as I'm at PEACE WITH MYSELF.

What I've just wrote is not what I ment in the original post and should be subjected to debate separately.

 

[icehorse]

Good question; and I agree. Our pure reliance on science has definitely made us cold, especially in spiritual affairs. I'm not saying we should live without science and deny logic, but if you're skeptical towards spirituality and religion it's only fair for that person to be just as skeptical towards science.

This is a false dilemma. There is no reason that science and *spirituality* cannot coexist. (Although I'd content that it's much harder for science and religion to coexist.)

What's the difference between spirituality and religion? Well, for one thing you don't need middle-men (clergy) to be spiritual.

 

[Caligula]

I agree that a totally secular attitude is the best atheism. It's those who have to get a high horse to see how theists are doing harm to us all that sadden me.

So we should let fanaticism and fundamentalism go unchecked ????

Extremism is the reason I can not indulge the luxury of being an apatheist.

I have no problems at all with moderate theists.

moderate theist: "Do you believe in God?"
me: "I don't care!"
moderate theist: "Well, you should!"
me: "Well, I don't. Please don't bother me with this kind of questions anymore"

This is where it stops. Anyone that crosses that line is no longer moderate in my view.

 

[paarsurrey]

It seems to me that an ideal world would be just fine with atheists being atheists.

I agree with you.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Amen.

I agree that a totally secular attitude is the best atheism. It's those who have to get a high horse to see how theists are doing harm to us all that sadden me.

I don't think that the Atheists are necessarily secular.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

In an ideal world people would be naturalist and the term atheist would not exist because there would be no theistic claim to reject.

I don't think that the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are necessarily natural.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

This is a false dilemma. There is no reason that science and *spirituality* cannot coexist. (Although I'd content that it's much harder for science and religion to coexist.)

What's the difference between spirituality and religion? Well, for one thing you don't need middle-men (clergy) to be spiritual.

I agree what I have colored in magenta.

Regards

 

[Willamena]

I don't think that the Atheists are necessarily secular.

Regards

Indeed, they aren't.