this is a prime example of someone who isn't patient enough to read carefully.

As I mentioned above "gender identity is separate from biological sex"

And this thread has nothing to do with transitioning. Stay on topic please.

You really have a skewed understanding of atheism. The label "atheism" only addresses the proposition in the belief of a God/Gods. That is all there is to it. Anything besides that is a separate issue. Every atheist (Non believer in a God/Gods) holds different world views in regards to every aspect of life. I happen to espouse secular morality and situational ethics and I also believe in evolution, another atheist may think otherwise.

Your statement "the atheist..." is a nonsensical statement. For the reasons I mentioned above. Not all atheists think the same. The only thing atheists have in common is their disbelief in a God/Gods.

Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely disbelief in a God/Gods. There are no tenets or rules.

When it comes to Morality, Religion has provided zilch. Religion was just a venue for ancient humans to impose rules and create order. Through myths and stories. Morality already exists in Nature, as evolutionary beings we care about well being.

Clearly in this day and age, religious myths are not needed since the supernatural stories are superfluous. They provide no substance.

I don't find any use in religion. They fail to impart morality and they fail to substantiate all supernatural claims. So I say, it is reasonable to dismiss belief in such a thing until belief is warranted.

The artists intention is irrelevant as well. Duchamps point of this urinal thing was that Art can be something non-conventional. But it doesn't matter because Art is still Art, it's still something that possesses emotional power, as I have said.

Anything can be considered Art, are you saying that urinal thing doesn't affect people emotionally? Doesn't make them feel inspired? I get inspired by different random objects, even when I look at a car wasteland for example. Or even cracks on walls. They all trigger some kind of emotion.

You're kidding right? I took the liberty to learn about the examples you provided and still, as I suspected, they're not exceptions to the definition of art.

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." - Dictionary.com

Provide any piece of work from Marcel Duchamp, Picasso, or Fennings Wake that doesn't fall under this definition, I assure you, there is none. Every form of art boils down to emotional communication that requires an audience.

This is really just a clash of definitions. In the case of your definition, things like science books, 3D model prototypes would be considered art. Both examples are have a cerebral and intellectual purpose. If this can be defined as art, then I am fine without. Art is subjective anyway.

All the examples you mentioned (Picazzos cubism, Marcel Duchamp, Fennings wake) are not exceptions. Their works are still art and they still require an audience to instill a particular emotion or thought. It can be any kind of emotion. In the case of picassos cubism, its classified as a form of aesthetics and supposedly is meant to resonate an audience.

We need to know when to draw the line between a work of art and a work that is not art. Lets say for example an architect made a particular construction like a building. His purpose was to build a shelter, nothing else. His work is not considered art. Now, if the architect hired an interior and exterior designer, his work would be considered art because the patterns and decorations he adds to the architect would have to be something that can resonate with us emotionally. A beautiful pattern would be something for example that would attract us because we are evolutionarily pattern seeking animals, and we are atteacted to colors and shapes. This is the point when we can call something art.

Personally, anything that is made to be called art is done as a means of emotional communication. Decorations like patterns in architect for example is meant to instill an emotion in people, the more intricate and extravagant the more overwhelmed a person feels. Some decorations make people feel more cosy and homey. Other forms of art like paintings, and music are all forms of emotional communication. When you describe music for example, you say things like this song is uplifting, depressing, energizing, inspirational, revolutionary... etc. Has there been art that is not meant for emotional communication?

Suppose you are creating art, what purpose are creating for? Perhaps in your mind, you are aiming this art for a particular audience, to instill a particular feeling. As well as to convey a message.

All cases of what people call art is a form of emotional communication, but it is subjective, which is why not all art affects everyone the same way.

Actually, the alien can do both. If they are greedy enough to colonise every part of the universe, and they are intelligent, they would know better than to expose themselves to potential threat so they must remain silent. Aliens are not omnipotent, so they keep themselves cautious to any other extraterrestrial civilizations that might be more powerful than them. They search for other civilisations and if they find one, they don't communicate with them but study them, if they know they can defeat them, they would invade (most likely in a stealthy, inconspicuous manner).

Honestly, when I think of intrinsic value I always ask, according to who or what? Because objectively speaking, reality has no intrinsic value, and by virtue of saying so is tantamount to a person holding superstitious believes positing that something has some sort of "meaning". The word intrinsic implies belonging to or innate to something. When we value something, we desire said thing. The question is who does it belong to, why and how?

We desire pleasure, but pleasure is subjective and every person derives pleasure from whatever they desire. The point is humans, being naturally evolved creatures, have a set of genes that drives them to bear intrinsic values. Food is intrinsically valuable to us for obvious reasons.

The word "value" is a strange concept if you think about it. It seems like biological organisms are the only ones who bear this thing since we have this qualia we call "pain" and we rather steer clear of it.

We, humans, have more sophisticated values because we evolutionarily developed intellect. We value education, our personal hobbies, money... abstract things that go beyond basic animalistic instinct.

Other natural phenomenon don't bear this thing we like to call value, for example, does fire have "value"? when you steer a raging ember, fire doesn't long to stay ablaze. The flame is equally neutral to being oxidised or bereft of oxygen while living things have this natural propensity towards things that will help them survive.