Shima,
However, it means that all the gods invented by those theists are not real, but rather figments of their imagination. As we understand the "dominating" powers more clearly, we see that they do NOT posess the randomness of a human personality, but rather obey strict natural laws.
I disagree. What evidence do you have that brings you to this conclusion? On what do you base the claim that atheists see the "dominating" power more clearly?
Certainly a theist is allowed to use figurative language to describe the attributes of God without then making God a figment of the imagination. If I can describe the sun as setting and rising without scandal, then certainly I'm allowed to describing God as "Father." My choice of wording does not prove God is an imagination any more than it proves the sun is not real. My religion is not opposed to Natural Law.
Should you choose theism and you choose the incorrect religion, then the effects are just as bad as being an atheist. However, atheists will have at least ONE life that isn't wasted, as they tend to follow their own ideals, and not some religious ideals.
False dichotomy - either I choose a religious life which is a waste, or I choose atheism and my will is free. This is a false dichotomy because you haven't proven that a religious life is a waste. You also imply that religious people are not following their own free will. I am.
Also, how are the effects of choosing the wrong religion "just as bad" as being an atheist? You must be mixing me up with some other theist who believes in exclusive membership to their religious denomination as a requirement for salvation.
I have merely decided in accordance with my free will, based upon the available evidence for religion versus irreligion. I'm admitting that man is not the power than dominates, and I'm choosing to seek to unite myself to the powers which do actually dominate.
That is, I am living my own ideals as I have adopted a way of life which brings joy into my life like I never had before, whether it's the "wrong" religion or not. Like R.B. Perry concludes in the article I referenced,
Thus it is fair to conclude that religion is universal in two senses. On the one hand it springs from a universal need. On the other hand, it possesses a universal value, and cannot fail, however much of error or blindness there may be in it, to elevate and dignify life. True religion is better than false, but it is not less certain that religion is better than irreligion.
Religion is a "win, win" situation. If merely seeking to do God's will pleases God, even if I goof it up along the way, then there's hope for any theist. If the atheist is correct, I have nothing to lose. Where's the down side again?
As there are very many religions on this world, the chance of choosing the correct one (if there is any ofcourse) is small.
I've studied all the mainstream world religions and the choice seemed pretty easy for me. One stands out among the rest. However, the point is I haven't mentally closed the door to religion, and so I could continue the endeavor to seek the power that does dominate. The evidence does not suggest that the power that dominates is man.
Also, even if choose the incorrect religion, I am seeking God through reason and faith, and doing my best to do his will. I've put myself on a path toward something greater than my selfish needs. Seeking to do God's will can only please God, no matter what blunders I make along the way.
The chance that one religion in particular is "correct" doesn't depend on the amount of followers. So, since we cannot predict in any way that our current choise of religion is true, why not be an atheist in the mean time?
Let me give you an analogy. I took Quantum Physics in college. We know that we are not correct. There's something incomplete about the prevailing theory of physics. Also, we know that in our lifetime, we probably won't figure it all out. However, does that stop us from trying? I sure hope not. Because, no matter how much our theory of physics is in incorrect, however much of error or blindness there may be in it, we know that it can serve to improve our human existence. Just because it's unlikely that we have all the answers of physics, doesn't mean I should stop trying to figure out physics. Likewise, it doesn't mean that physics does not have value to humanity. And although we don't have all the certainty we wish we have, we're pretty confident that the choices we made thus far have lead us down the right path in physics. The same could be said of theology.
We know we don't have all the theological answers. However, despite not having all the facts, we choose to reject some opinion in favor of others. Do you stumble through life with that much doubt about your day to day choices? If not, why do you assume that I've made choices which I cannot say with more confidence than not that they are true?
Atheism is one among the plurality of choices that you speak of. The chance that the form of atheism that you chose is correct is no greater than form of theism I chose. A specific form of atheism is just as much a rejection of all the other choices as a specific form of theism. We have a heretical imperative. As I said before, I'm methodical and must choose, as indecision gets you nowhere in any endeavor. I took a top down approach to theology. I looked at the evidence and concluded that atheism was a dead end choice. What ever is right, I believe it's behind door #2, that is, theism.
At least you get to CHOOSE this life as you see fit. In the case of theism, you stand a very good chance of having NO choise of life.
You must have had a very bad theistic experience in your life. Because I cannot even relate to what you are saying.
I have studied atheism and theism, and practiced many theologies in my quest to learn the truth. To freely choose any one of these theistic beliefs is an improvement over atheism, in my experience. I choose this life as I see fit. I choose theism. And, when I look back at my choice, I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Should, for example. Hinduism with its idea about reincarnation and Karma be true, then it wouldn't particularly matter if you are an atheist or not.
I believe a Hindu would certainly disagree with you. When I studied Hinduism, I believe it's attempt at bringing some meaning, some sense and spirituality to the world and our relationship to it was much better, in my opinion than the "life is absurd" theory described by the atheist, Albert Camus, for example.
Rather, what WOULD matter is your choise of "morality" in life. I tend to believe atheists have a far more social choise of morality than most theists,
False dichotomy, again. A theist or atheist can live a moral life. I depends upon the kind of atheism or theism chosen and upon each individual choice we make in our lives. Morality matters. However, I don't believe it is all that matters.
mainly because to a atheist people are the ONLY important things.
Yes. And in my experience, I've found this conclusion to be incorrect. People are important. But I see no evidence to suggest that people are the ONLY important things.
Theists tend to believe that their god/gods are more important than people and thus neglegt the importance of people.
I disagree. My experience is that people who think of themselves as NOT the ultimate power in the world tend to aspire toward a life of selflessness. There are no doubt exceptions to the rule in both atheism and theism. Most successful religions are "ethical" religions. For example, hospitals were not the invention of atheistic communities (have the ever really been any?), but instead were invented by Catholic monastic communities.
A question for you Shima or any atheist...
Do you believe Man is merely the most fortunate animal on the planet? It is obvious to me that man has the upper hand with regard to controlling his environment. However, do you believe that man is merely enjoying the fruits of mere random chance?
God bless,
