I wonder what the response of the atheist community would be to a religion that endorses scientific progress and doesn't contradict it.
This is a somewhat irritating read as an article due to its ESL issues, but here:
And, I know people will raise a load of other protests against this religion.
But I'm confident that anyone who cares will really research the topic and come to their own conclusion. I will also reply to debate (if I remember to check back) and provide links here if asked. The article I posted is only a tiny fraction of what you can investigate online.
Think of these questions:
What is the natural state of humankind? (As a self-conscious creature?)
How could humankind achieve a culture of sentient, progressive harmony with the rest of the planet? (When and where has this state existed, if anywhere or any time, since we evolved that sentience?)
What can happen to extraneous religious teachings of an organized religion over time? (Especially to something as subjective as related memories? What do you need to take with a grain of salt even if you believe in a "God"?)
Who was it who believed you could discover the truth of the universe through pure rationality, and what conclusion did he reach? (Does modern science support his philosophy at all?)
There's a lot of criticism of religious people based on the thought that it's somehow intellectually weak to believe in a higher power. A religious person is seen as cowardly, unwilling to face a world without a higher power. They bind themselves to the imaginary machinations of a faith in order to feel part of something greater than themselves, because they can't stand living without meaning and they're not strong enough to forge their own.
These critiques are quite sensible and may hold water in some individual cases.
However, those who utilize them often forget a crucial point of understanding. People are diverse. Some don't want to believe in a higher power, they'd much rather have the freedom and the decision that there is no higher power is often based on psychological conditioning instead of pure rationality.
There are some who desire freedom and some who desire bondage. It's not any stronger to choose freedom as long as you still remain a slave to whatever it is that you desire.
Then, there are the ones who understand that the fabric of reality isn't dependent on their desires.
For instance, if I want a state of existence in which rocks are alive and grass is a collection of static, inanimate, non-living emerald shards...
I'd have to delude myself into seeing it. All of us delude ourselves by limiting informational input by our own expectations, by our socialized psychologies, by our subconscious desires.
There's a lot of people who deny evolution, for instance, because they don't really want 'reality'. It's much more comfortable to cling to traditional beliefs than go out on a limb and conceptualize the universe.
On closing, I know it's somewhat foolish to make this post in an atheist internet community - after all, why are you all here if you don't want to believe in atheism? I don't imagine anyone will care, but I hope you don't just see this post as an annoying attempt at proselytizing. I'd honestly like honest responses to these questions.
Thank's Apple, the two words do have specific meanings and it is good to understand that.
As to the wolf metaphor you mentioned earlier, it's a nice story but it doesn't actually cover the idea of a great creator, just human nature. A lot of the native american religions focus on Wolf vs. Coyote, or the idea of two brothers. Usually one embodies the noble aspects of humanity, responsibility and wisdom, while the other embodies impulsiveness and chaos. The world as we know it is constantly shifting between the two, but neither will ever win as luck and misfortune will constantly change things. Opposites crossed is another common idea tossed in, stemming from the same storyline it seems.
I don't think I will ever understand the why of your belief Asma. I don't believe that we can know. I believe that we try, but that everything is filtered through our minds and is thus intrinsically biased. We cannot see ourselves clearly because we are inside ourselves. We are limited beings in a nigh-limitless universe. We are too small to see the big picture, and the picture you try to paint seems very unlikely to me, and very small. I don't want such a small picture to be the whole.
I actually was insistent upon atheism but keep finding god, literally upside the head. I believe there is not enough criticism against dogma and churches or mean people outside of churches. This critique shouldn't be against the BELIEF in a higher power, but against a belief, used to judge others in harsh or limiting ways. That is worth criticising. Go thinkers and believers, maybe in the common ground we find common salvation,)
Judge others harshly:
hmmmm.... in Eastern Islamic societies women are second class citizens (cannot even drive a car in Saudi Arabia); people are dismembered for crimes; women hung for having affairs, etc.
I cannot be a part of any society that condones such practices.
As to god or Allah: Would you be able to come to the conclusion that a god exists, in your imagination or otherwise, if NO ONE else had brought the concept to your attention? I mean what are the chances you would concoct this notion on your own?
A jungle tribe was just discovered in the Brazilian rain forest. They had no prior contact to the outside world. They have no concept of time or god. No words exist in their rudimentary vocabulary for such things. Is there anything we can learn from these people? Most definitely I'm thinking.
"It isn't the endorsement of science that is an issue for Atheists, but the belief in a higher power."