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.


Views: 166

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You Said:

I'm trying to point out that judging others based off subjective ideas that can't be proven is not right. You should adopt an objective mindset when you judge other people. Subjectivity is for yourself.


You are the one coming in here and judging our non-belief based off your subjective ideas that cannot be proven and you are correct in saying that that is not right.  I have maintained an objective mindset and not judged you - I've judged your beliefs as unfounded and your epistemology as flawed.  You are also correct in that my subjectivity is for myself, and that is why I do not proselytize my imaginations.  When I write fiction it is clear that it is fiction - even stated in the opening as a 'fictional work' by Heather Spoonheim.


I don't care if you want to believe in your imaginary story - why do you care if I even know about your imaginary story?  Have I asked you to read my imaginary story?

"Besides the scientific miracles of the Qur'an"

Name one Koran based 'scientific miracle' in specific.

Heather, I'm not judging you or insulting you. You said that I couldn't tell the difference between imagination and reality, and that I was deluded. Those are insulting judgments, and your belief that the story of God is made-up is a subjective mindset and not an objective one. Objectively, you don't know. Neither do I, objectively, which is why I'm not judging you believing the story is made up.


I haven't asked you to read my imaginary stories. All I've done is post my view on something. You have posted your views on things too, and if what I have done is to ask you to read my imaginary story then you have done the same.


I'm afraid I will no longer be discussing things here because I think it has become detrimental and annoying to everyone involved. I've said enough that anyone who wants to keep an open mind about things will realize that true Islam is not the Islam stigmatized in the media.

I've actually gone to significant effort to provide people with a more objective view of Islam by providing them with facts.  To that end, I haven't asked them to believe in imaginary beings, I've simply asked them to realize that people who blow themselves up because of such beliefs are no more dangerous than gun-toting American crack-heads.
This seems pretty naive, or even self-deluding in light of the actual ways that people live their lives according to the guidelines they believe originate from some kind of divine orders. Of course they are not all bad, but the problem is this whole "divine" origin business. If you're going to try and make your religion rational, then you're going to do away with your religion, because reason can only lead you to atheism. Belief in a divine being is irrational in that it REQUIRES that "leap of faith." unfortunately, that leap of faith lands you right in the abyss of the irrational where anything is possible. I mean how can you dispute someone if they're telling you that they have spoken to god and they are relaying his message. Just because you don't agree with the content of the message, because it doesn't fit what your idea of your god is, is basically meaningless, because there is no way to prove that your idea of what your god is is actually the truth; and that this other persons idea is false. It can always only come down to personal interpretation and belief. Therefore it is impossible for there ever to be a single brand of islam, or christianity or any religion because they are all founded on this leap into the abyss of the irrational.
You say it's irrational but it was Plato who arrived at the concept through pure rationality. Once you arrive at a concept, you research the palpable world and eventually you will either see the concept fit in or you won't.
Plato's arguments presuppose that the "palpable" world is but a shadow of the true would of forms, which leads etc to the ideal of the Good being the ultimate form and all that. But since the entire system relies on assumptions that have no supporting evidence, it's essentially irrational.

I (and Plato) would contend that it is a purely rational journey to arrive at the conclusion of a form of Good.


What is Justice? Every reflection of justice as a concept, in the palpable world, is different. Justice isn't something that can be so simply defined. Justice is a form casting shadows into our palpable world. Research every instance of justice, think about it very carefully, and you will grow closer and closer to understanding its true form.


Whether its true form actually exists or not is irrelevant to its conceptualization. It's not a proof in itself. 


What I'm saying, though, is that the idea of God is not as irrational as disbelievers in God like to say. 


When I didn't really believe in God, I didn't contest the rationality of Plato's concept. I simply didn't believe it existed, because I was being pessimistic. 

You didn't believe it not because you were being pessimistic but because you were being rational. Of course there is an "idea" of "good," around which there is a constellation of associated qualities, but to say that "good" is something that actually exists in physical reality requires a leap of faith, and is therefore irrational. There have been many attempts to prove the existence of god through logical arguments and they all fail.
I don't feel that it really requires a leap of faith when it makes complete sense. It's like fitting a piece into an equation as a test. For now, it fits and it makes complete sense! So I'll use this equation until it no longer fits.
the question is: how do you know that you know what you know. what are your criteria for determining whether something is true or not true, or knowable or not-knowable.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service