|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Prayer -- Some Philosophical Reflections a strong atheist: >> Close eyes, put fingers in ears, shake head, >> shuffle/stomp feet and chant: no, no, no, no, >> no, no, no..... Another poster replied: > Not even close. The prayer goes like this > (everybody please bow your heads) > Oh Lord > Ooooh, you are so big! > So absolutely huge. > Gosh, we're really impressed down here > I can tell you. > Forgive us O Lord, for this our dreadful toadying. > And baredfaced flattery. > But you're so strong as well. > Just so super! > Amen > -- > "The word God is for me nothing more than the > expression and product of human weaknesses, > the Bible a collection of honourable, but still > primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty > childish." > - Albert Einstein I replied: Two parts of the original post in need of elaboration: Prayer, usually defined as 1-1a) an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought, 1-2) a set order of words used in praying, 1-2b) an earnest request or wish, 2) the act or practice of praying to God or a god. Strong atheist, usually defined as someone who disbelieves in God, god, gods. So, based on the laws of logic, prayer and strong atheist are inconsistent terms unless one is referring to "an earnest request or wish", in which case, so long as the "earnest request or wish" was not made to a deity, the original title of the article (Prayer of a Strong Atheist) could be applied. In that case, the "earnest request or wish" of a "strong atheist", not made to a deity, would likely entail some aspects of strong atheism that were likely to apply, such as the following: 1) Opposition to brainwashing children and adults into being afraid of a deity, and disagreement with those who try to preach that promising immortality makes all the religious threats OK, 2) Opposition to anti-science preached in the name of religion 3) Support for science and expansion of human know- ledge of the natural world so long as scientific gain is not used in a harmful way (with, of course, the excep- tion being when strong atheists advocate harm, noting that in the religious realm, using science to harm others occurred on 9-11 and so by no means is religion inno- cent when it comes to using science to promote harm) 4) Recognition that knowing, and searching, and explor- ing are worthwhile endeavors that, ideally, can free us all from the natural prisons we are currently bound by (with, of course, the exception being when strong atheists advocate ignorance for some or many, and keep in mind, a substantial aspect of religion is invested in fighting against knowledge, especially true in the past, and remain- ing as a strong risk among the most fundamental religious followers). 5) Noting that strong atheism alone doesn't address the milieu of choices that humans must make, and as such, a philosophy (aka, worldview) that is much more compre- hensive than merely rejecting religion (a critical first step in escaping the flaws of the past and present) must be arrived at to enhance the chances of maximizing this one and only certain life experience -- in that regard, I submit the following for consideration: FREELOVER Principles http://prohuman.net/freelover.htm For me, personally, disbelief in blind faith, religions, and imaginary beings led me to ponder what, free of the burdens of blind faith, I wanted to be about, leading me to a defini- tion of my personal beliefs based on FREELOVER principles. Faith in Pro-Humanism http://prohuman.net/prohumanism.htm For Those Who Must Have Faith In ... something ... For those who 'just gotta believe' in ... something/anything that might offer a sense of wholeness and completeness ... Wouldn't it be of inestimable value if humankind had a choice that was of more pro-humanity, substance, verity, logic, naturalism, and rationality than the mystical/super- natural choices currently available? - - -
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
