Not an Argument (A Self-critique on Contemporary Discombobulation of my Mind)

There is a chasm of fundamental difference between atheism and religion as defined by the humankind. 

When I say atheists I refer to all the men of science who need a mathematical or logical proof of life beyond our life. These are the self-proclaimed men of proof that believe that factual evidence leads to lesser evils; evidence leads to intelligent human beings behaving rationally and morality is an outcome of human evolution, from hunters to builders, rather than a faculty that draws power from a moral code of conduct defined by greater consciousness. The supernaturalistic beliefs lead to irrationality and religious zeal ultimately ending in bigotry. That's their problem with religion and hence the atheistic call for freedom from such beliefs that are non-scientific.

Religion in today's (since recorded human history) world has been reduced to belief in miracles and pestering requests for materialism from a supernatural being. The fundamental philosophy points that problem lies not in the religion but in the unquenchable desire to quickly gain earthly possessions and gratification of senses. So apparently there is a problem with the faculty of human emotions that guides us in the life. It's not a question of realignment of mind from religion to atheism or vice versa. It's a call of back to basics where the focus is on the understanding of concepts that haven't been fully understood yet; ranging from nature and purpose of existence.

As long as humans keep believing there is a problem with religion or science the fight to prove other one wrong would continue. However you cannot prove the other wrong. The two "philosophies" seem to deal with two different aspects of human existence. As physicists realized the fundamentals of Newtonian physics were incapable of explaining the unimaginable quantum world. A theory of logic is unable to explain the human psyche to continuously pursue sense in a world full of insanity. These natural sciences are limited and have evidences that help to explain certain inexplicable phenomenon. At the same time there are spiritual philosophies in Vedic religion that explain the nature of human body, mind and soul. As a student I should have the right to pursue both not get stuck in a cold war between atheists and religionists to prove other wrong. 

This is not a debate on creationist versus evolutionist. I'm not going to bash the religious freaks on the misuse of religion for their own propaganda resulting in massive discrimination within human race and gross misrepresentation of religion as malicious doctrine. Also, I'm not going to ridicule the evolutionist on their brazen desire to label religious faith as equivalent to believing in fairies then again believing a theory of evolution that includes leaps of faith such as primordial soup, tiktaalik and genes that carry the blueprints of life. Science is amazing and so are religious philosophies. Both the paths have power to bring human mind to a realization that should lead to embracing qualities like humility and knowledge (bit biased as these two are my favourites).

This is a plea to the two kinds to leave me alone. I don't want to be burdened by your continuous effort to prove other wrong. I'm awed by scientists when they talk about multiverse, wave theory, hox genes and now apparently highschoolish concepts of gravity that are explicable with equations but mysterious in nature. In the same way I'm awed by sants (संत ) that are truth seekers not miracle workers who points to theories that would raise my consciousness beyond polluted materialism and into a state of perpetual humbleness. In my own way I want to bring my life's purpose to a conclusion. On the way I'll be helped by the philosophies of science as well as religion. After all I think life is a journey of self-discovery rather than an attempt to mold into a cast of any "-ism".