64 Answers

  1. The question was originally formulated incorrectly: “What is the meaning of atheism if…”, as if everything listed after if somehow discredits the very idea of atheism.

    Atheism is based on the idea that knowledge of the world does not require the idea of an eternal and omnipotent Creator of all things. The world turned out to be quite knowable without it. The idea of God turned out to be superfluous for the process of scientific knowledge of the world.

    Actually, this is its meaning — not to produce entities beyond the need.

  2. There is no point in atheism. Just like in real life, too. So what? God help me, I'm tired of all these questions that have been copied out of a flawed logic – if I don't know something, then scrambled eggs must be tasteless. In the garden of elderberry, and in Kiev…

    Here there is absolutely no connection between the understanding of the world, especially the complete one, and the existence or not of the Supreme Intelligence. It may or may not exist. And that's exactly what atheism claims – we don't know. The opposite point of view, which we know, is completely based on nothing. That's all.

  3. I didn't really understand the question. And what is the meaning of religion, if we do not fully understand, if there is a Supreme Mind in the world? There are two options – after death, to understand that I beat my forehead on the floor in vain, probably, it will not be so pleasant either:)) So people chose the second option. At least it doesn't require fasts, sacrifices, or a broken forehead.

    https://vk.com/genuya1

  4. I have never come across an antithesis to this question: What is the meaning of religion when science has answered the most pressing questions of existence and more, and is there even a grain of reason in it? I bet that if an atheist posted this question in a religious community, the whoops and boobies would smear it with the stones of their anger (as they usually did with the objectionable… there are plenty of examples in the Bible!) The fact is that in atheism there is a meaning without any supreme reason, but in religion there is only one: to keep the majority of people in fear and obedience to the “puppet masters” of politics!

  5. Cool question, thanks)

    I like the way psychoanalysts look at this question. Atheism is a protest against God that has little to do with science, if you look closely. Because the scientific method is about understanding the world, and not about the fact that this world must necessarily be created without the participation of the Creator in any sense.

    Atheism seems to want to prove to God that he did not create this world – so it looks from the outside, if you look carefully. This is a God-fighting worldview, because all he is interested in is how to finally prove that there is no God, but to find more weighty and objective evidence, so that no one dares to argue for sure.

    But what does science care? Nothing. Science exists regardless of whether there is a God or not, because the scientific method was created in such a way that it does not depend on the value orientations of religion, so that they do not restrain it, but do not support it either. This is constantly pointed out by people who have their heads in the right place – just put God in front of the Big Bang and go together to drink beer, because you have nothing to argue about. In this sense, science and religion have no problems in the modern world. But atheism is a different beast altogether. This is not science, this is a God-fighting protest, which absolutely needs that God does not exist.

    The most interesting thing: to whom do they prove that there is no God? After all, even if everyone around him agreed on this, how could Dawkins be silent for even a moment? This is despite the fact that no one has been interested in this issue for a long time and everyone has realized that religious issues are much more complicated. No, it can't.

    Why? Yes, because atheism proves to God that he does not exist. An atheist is a person who aggressively points his finger at the sky and shouts that there is no one there. Who is he shouting at? Someone who isn't there? Why shout to someone who isn't there? Yes, because these are people who care about the question of God, but care about it from the other side – they are practicing the ability to prove that he does not exist.

    Any God-fighting initiative implies the God with whom it fights. If there is no God, then there is no need to fight with him and prove that he does not exist – he does not exist anyway, what is there to prove? What should I talk about? About an empty space?

    Does this somehow drive scientific progress? Hardly. While you are scolding God, the world is not learning about itself and is not getting better – this should be clear.

    So the point of atheism is to organize your protest moods against God (who is a Father figure) in such a way that it looks as scientific as possible. Atheism disguises itself as science in order to present its conclusions as something objective, but in fact has no direct relation to science. These things should not be mixed, because they are not the same thing.

    I hope I won't be burned at the stake of science for such an answer 🙂

  6. The meaning of atheism is not to multiply entities and not to rely on imaginary “friends”, but to learn to live in a world in which we can influence something, relying on ourselves and taking responsibility for our lives.

    We will never fully understand our world. And now what? There have always been, are and will always be parts of this world that are still incomprehensible or incomprehensible in principle. This does not mean that you need to use Cthulhu, Krishna, Yahweh, or the dwarves to explain them.

    The meaning of atheism is not to be content with the answer “it was God's will”, but to look for other reasons for the events of your own life, find your role in them and do what you can without waiting for the help of the character from the picture.

  7. The point is that no one knows anything.

    Just someone is trying to find out and finds out, and someone draws a fairy tale and believes in it.

    As a result, the sailors prayed for 1,700 years that the Lord would guide them to the sea on the right path, and it was not the Lord who sent them, but Kepler, who created the navigation tables.

    Farmers prayed that the Lord would send the harvest, and the harvest was not sent by the Lord, but by Mendeleev, Timiryazev and other Michurins.

    All people pray for health, and people are treated by doctors and bioengineers.

    This is the meaning of atheism. Do not replace the existing reality with a picture, but gradually, step by step, learn about this world and make it better.

    Even you wrote your message thanks not to God, but to the engineers who created the device from which you write, and the data transmission networks, and server nodes, and electric machines to power all this.

  8. The point of atheism is not to claim a definitive description of the world, but to criticize the historical forms of religion in order to liberate the mind.

    Note also that the world's religions are not concerned with describing the Supreme Intelligence, but rather with a more practical task: building a person's personal relationship with the Almighty and organizing ritual procedures as a social institution.

  9. No, no, no. You've got it all mixed up.

    What is the meaning of FAITH if we have not yet fully understood how our world works and whether there is a Supreme Mind in it?

    Yes, there can be a lot of things. Maybe the Earth is even flat! Then why don't we believe in flatlands? And what, you never know what can be.

  10. The practical main meaning and goal of atheism is in the political struggle against religions – “for a place in the sun”.

    The practical use of atheism is to point out and expose the many errors and sins of religions.

    The theoretical harm of atheism is the acute scientific insufficiency of its foundations.

  11. I have encountered two forms of atheism. In the first form, everything immaterial is denied, but in the second form, an idea is given to go to. Bright future for our descendants, happiness and peace, etc.

    People are given the hope they live for.

    This very bloody form of atheism, with its “inquisitors”, misleads people in order to manage them calmly, turning a blind eye to utopia.

    The second form gives nothing and promises nothing. Only that you will die and be eaten by worms. He says that man is a machine, only a biological one. He says that thinking about what's beyond is a symptom of schizophrenia. And a healthy person should not think about it. The meaning of life makes a difficult question, saying that it is not solvable.

    Of course, if you remove hope, faith, a person will not be able to solve this issue. The person closes his eyes and stops thinking.

    These people are the easiest to manage. Because people don't care about anything. Naturally, except for yourself(which greatly simplifies the process. Give me food, it will serve you in everything)

    Now the second form is more common, because in the first form, when you change course, you need to change the idea that is difficult to plant and even more difficult to maintain. The second one doesn't even have an idea…

  12. The question itself is answered. World religions have tried to describe the structure of the world, but science has succeeded, but not yet completely.

    Regarding the Supreme Mind, folk wisdom accurately described the meaning of atheism “hope in God, but do not be bad yourself.”

    Science = atheism. If the Supreme Intelligence is discovered, then science will study it, not just worship it.

  13. Buddhism is pure atheism, and nothing has existed for thousands of years. Dialectic however. At the beginning of the 20th century, a public order was made for Bolshevik atheism in the Russian imperial society (read “Klim Samgin”). Marx correctly called religion the opium of the people. Violent atheism in Russia has led to such destructive abstinence that we are only now coming to our senses.

  14. What is the meaning of sectarianism? (religions)

    Religion is the same sect, and sects for good are forbidden, because they will not lead to anything good.

    Atheists basically have no religion, they don't believe in anyone,they don't need it.

    For verunovs, I will write a decoding of the concepts, in a simple way.

    Faith is when I believe that there is a God and live according to his laws, not messing up or being responsible for my own shoals. I live according to the teachings of the God Yahweh, whose son was Jesus Christ, by a mortal woman.

    Religion – I condemn everyone, say that all whores and prostitutes, I hate women, I worship idols in the form of saints who are not Gods. Constantly kosyachu and run to the Temple or Church to make up for my sins, and buying forgiveness buying candles.

    I interfere with the life of other people by imposing my faith and call those who do not want it extra morons and shout that they will all burn in hell.

    You can decide for yourself what makes sense and what doesn't

  15. I understand that such nonsense is written by believers in the section “Atheism” and I understand why : to throw it-to start a conversation, sow doubts, and then maybe turn it into your worldview. This is intended for the young growth, doubters, and not for “persistent” atheists .I will definitely answer it so that those who doubt it can also read it.

    The meaning of atheism is the unwillingness to be fooled and not to waste time, money, not to clog your brain with fantasies , “not to fly in the clouds”.

    Liars tell fairy tales so plainly that it's just a shame for themselves: do I really look like an idiot if they tell me such a thing ?

    An atheist doesn't give a shit how the world works, whether there is a mind in it. Is this knowledge useless and uninteresting to him ?

  16. Atheists are needed by believers like air, otherwise believers will get completely bogged down in their dogmas and will not seek the truth,will not improve.After all, everyone has long known the fact that the truth is born in a dispute.

  17. The point of any concept is to determine the vector of thinking for studying the environment, and then integrate it into this system. Atheism contrasts its arguments with religious ones because the religious concept seems untenable to the atheist and does not answer the question “who am I” and ” why am I here?” And the atheist begins to look for answers in other sources, such as science, for example.

  18. The question is somewhat incorrect, because it presupposes another definition of the state of spiritual communication of a person with the world-agnosticism, that is, faith in a Higher Mind, while atheism denies any faith in God.

  19. atheism is more likely not a complete denial of God or the supreme mind, but a denial of its existence precisely in the proposed forms of views of various religions and traditions

  20. The practical meaning of atheism is in the potential (possible) 100% perfection (self-sufficiency) of a person, with life without any OUTSIDE help (the atheistic principle “I CAN DO EVERYTHING MYSELF”). This possibility is inherent in a person by Nature potentially. In this way, atheism can and must prove its practical advantage.

    The THEORETICAL guaranteed meaninglessness and weakness of atheism lie in the direction of unrealistic searches for global theoretical refutations of classical religions. The guaranteed success of atheism lies only in the practical way. Practice is the criterion of Truth – the main formula for success of both Science and atheism.

  21. The meaning of atheism is practical – in systematic constructive criticism of the behavior of believers, who should behave 1000 times better, because Faith strongly obliges believers to do this.

    This is practically very beneficial for believers, religions and atheists because of the dramatic comprehensive improvement in the quality and culture of life.

    The meaning of atheism is general theoretical (in the proofs of counter-dogmas of faith) – a completely failed, unpromising, insignificant activity that proves the obvious theoretical weakness of atheism.

    Atheists will really be able to prove their advantage only by a practical method-to become 1000 times better than believers in behavior – this will be very convincing and evidence-based, then everyone will become atheists guaranteed. Practice ( behavior) – The Criterion of Truth – is the main practical formula for both Science and success of atheism.

  22. Good afternoon!

    1. Atheism is a type of human worldview. This is an attempt to explain the world and its origin without approaching religious faith by materialistic conclusions.

    The roots of atheism go back to the distant past. To prove this conclusion, I will cite some lines from Wikipedia (article “atheism”):

    – Ancient Egypt. Statements of the atheistic views of ancient Egypt, if any, are not known. [85] [88] However, there are already works that criticize the religious view of the world[85]. The oldest[89] and most famous[85] of them is the “Harper's Song” created in the Middle Kingdom era (around 2100 BC [85]).

    – Early Indian religions and philosophical schools. Atheistic schools were present in early Hinduism. The materialistic and anti-religious Charvaka School of Philosophy, founded in India around the sixth century BC, is probably the most prominent atheist school in India. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as an unorthodox system and is not considered part of the six Orthodox schools of Hinduism, but deserves attention as a materialist movement in Hinduism.

    Chetherji and Datta write that the texts of Charvaka philosophy have not come down to us, and our understanding of this philosophy is based mainly on criticism of their ideas by other schools[90].

    The Indian philosophical system of sankhya is often considered atheistic. The denial of God as the one creator is also present in Jainism and Buddhism[91]. At the same time, representatives of these religions themselves and many researchers do not recognize them as atheistic and prefer to use the term non-theism[92][93][94], which in Russian-language literature is usually translated as non-theism.

    – Classical antiquity. In the Apology, Socrates is accused by Meletus of having absolutely no faith in the gods. As Socrates observes, “we see God in his great deeds, but how he rules all this is unknown” [95]. “Concerning the human soul, which more than anything else in man participates in the deity, it is known, “Socrates believes,” that it reigns in us, but we do not see it either. When one thinks about all this, one should not despise the invisible; on the contrary, one should recognize its actions in phenomena and honor the divine power ” [96]

    European atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but does not stand out as a separate trend until the end of the Enlightenment [87].

    The Greek poet Diagoras (5th century BC) is known as the “first atheist”[97] and an outspoken critic of religion and mysticism. Critias saw religion as a human invention, intimidating people into some kind of moral framework [98]. Xenophanes, criticizing the anthropomorphism of the gods of the Greek folk religion, which he opposed to a single world deity, was the first to put forward the idea that it was people who created the gods in their own image and likeness.

    Atomists like Democritus tried to describe the world only in a materialistic way, without invoking spirituality or mysticism.

    Socrates was accused of atheism for instilling in the inhabitants a lack of confidence in the gods that the city worshipped. Although the philosopher contested the charge of atheism, [101] he was eventually sentenced to death. Epicurus challenged many religious doctrines, including life after death and the divine essence. He believed that the soul is material and mortal. Although Epicureanism does not exclude the existence of gods, Epicurus believed that if there are gods, then humanity is indifferent to them [102]. Sextus Empiricus believed that the penalty for skepticism, known as pyrrhonism, which is nothing terrible, and ataraxia (“freedom of the mind” or “serenity of the soul”)should be abolished can be achieved by abolishing such a penalty. His works, which have survived in considerable numbers, significantly influenced subsequent philosophers [103]. From Ancient Rome, the only complete large — scale ancient philosophical atheistic work of one of the materialists and atheists of antiquity, Titus Lucretius Carus, has come down to us. Lucretius argued that if the gods exist, they do not care about humanity, and they do not affect the world around them.

    The above examples of ancient atheism cover the time interval from 2000 thousand BC to 5-6 century BC. It is likely that atheism occurred even earlier.

    According to the theory of evolution, atheism was inherent in primitive man, but in the process of evolution and under the influence of various external factors, man gradually began to acquire religious faith for greater adaptability to survival.

    According to the Bible, atheism began to manifest itself among the descendants of Cain, while the descendants of the righteous Seth revered the true God. That is, atheism and religious faith developed in parallel. Based on well-founded arguments, I personally tend to conclude that atheism was not originally inherent in humanity, but appeared due to the deviation of people from following the law of God, that is, as a result of the fall.

    2. The very word “atheism “is of Greek origin and can be translated as”denial of God”. It is possible to deny God without having solid objective evidence that He does not exist, but it is enough to have no desire to submit to His law and live as you want. As history shows, atheism does not require any scientific proof that there is no God. When science, in its modern sense, was not in sight, some people found for themselves some evidence (usually in the field of philosophy, which can not claim to be infallible, because any person is fallible) that there is no God and lived as if he really did not exist. Therefore, atheism is connected with science and knowledge in so far as, because even without this, atheism is assimilated by a person. Now people of an atheistic way often cover up their ideology with the achievements of science, but science in fact, even now, cannot refute the existence of God, but on the contrary, it shows more and more that the most complex world that we have could not develop by itself. One Christian apologist said that science does not prove the existence of God, but points to it. Only, some scientific disciplines can very successfully encroach on certain religious provisions, for example, on the possibility of miracles. But even if modern science could thoroughly and scientifically refute the Divine origin of Christianity, there would still be no scientific basis for atheism, because the existence of God is not scientifically refutable. But of course, there were no essential grounds for the Christian faith either, because the idea of God outside of religion(not only Christian) gives a person nothing but various vague ideas about the future life. But fortunately, today, there is enough scientific evidence that Christianity is a Divine Revelation.

    3. Based on all that has been said, I will conclude that the meaning of atheism is the same as that of religious faith – to fill a spiritual void. It is not for nothing that people say that everyone needs to believe in something. Without this, there is no meaning to life. A person needs to go somewhere and strive for something. The believer goes to God, and the atheist studies various philosophies, believes in scientific progress and that religion is essentially useless to anyone, and this calms himself, inspires him to go further on the same path. Someone goes this way all their life and dies with it, and someone at a certain stage of their life gains religious faith. Everything depends on the mental organization of each person, because both faith and atheism are rooted in the soul of each person. Therefore, I believe that just as atheism began to exist at the dawn of humanity's life, so it will continue to exist until the last days of humanity's earthly life, regardless of the fact of scientific proof of the existence of God in the future tense.

    Finally, I would like to note that the goals of religion and science are different. Religion (Christianity) tells a person how to live in order to have eternal life. Science explains on the basis of empirical facts how the world is created and how certain phenomena occur . And the subject of the creation of the world is also raised in religion as well as in science, only because a religious person must know where he came from, where he is going, and who is the Creator of everything. That is why the Bible contains the necessary scientific minimum, but nevertheless it is not a collection of naturalistic narratives, in which you can find a lot of scientific information. The Bible is a guide to God – this is its main purpose, and this great Book perfectly copes with this….

  23. Atheism had several causes that appeared and worked around the same time.

    1. A mess in the church. Within the Catholic church, first of all, serious internal contradictions begin in the 15th and 16th centuries, which result in the appearance of several dozen small branches. The division into Catholicism and Orthodoxy was understandable and was accepted not as “Christians did not agree among themselves, they are wrong”, but as a joint of worldviews (about which catechisms were written explaining the essence of the dispute). But when Anglicans-Baptists-Lutherans-Calvinists-Adventists-Mormons started popping up, people began to get confused about what, in fact, to consider a religion if they could not agree among themselves. And when the new Protestants hit common sense with extreme fanaticism (if you look at where and when witches were burned in Europe, you will be surprised), people sensed that something was wrong with religion.

    2. The struggle for independence. Europe is about Catholicism. Catholics are under the authority of the Pope. In the tenth century, it was cool, in the fifteenth century – strange, in the sixteenth-unpleasant, when you can be removed at any time by a protege of Italian bankers (this was not so, but who cares). In addition, the Pope regularly swore at the squabbles between Catholics, and he wanted to seize the land of his neighbors. As a result, the first step is to break with the “center” and transfer Catholicism to the home national church, which essentially killed the role of the church.

    3. The development of the idea of liberalism, or, as they said then, voltaireism. The whole point of that era was to remove everything that had anything to do with the monarchy, as well as everything that prevents the bourgeoisie from maximizing income. Religion was clearly associated with the” anointed one of God ” and the Middle Ages. It had to be removed at all costs.

    As a result, atheism came to court. Its meaning was primarily a change of rhetoric. If it was shameful to deceive a Catholic brother, and it is still tolerable to deceive a vile Huguenot, then when religious shackles are thrown away, you can deceive, only you need to get away from the vulgar theological nonsense and call it… well, at least the law of profit maximization or marketing policy.

    Atheism does not operate in metaphysics, its goal is to lead people away from the formulation of such abstract things to more mundane ones

  24. Have you ever failed to recognize the existence of a funcyclator, which tends to hang out on the edge of our galaxy? I'm sure it never occurred to you. You can only deny what exists, but you are not yet able to perceive it. As a rule, atheism denies the God that it is trying to impose from the outside. It's not bad, it's just an honest position. About the Supreme Mind. You can prove it not only by the method of assertion. Let the atheist woman herself create an egg and a spermatozoon, and then grow out of this ready-made person in her womb, then everything will be clear without proof. What else is there to fornicate in reasoning?

  25. There is no point in atheism. What is atheism? In fact, this is a rather late and marginal (in terms of the number of adherents) philosophical trend that primarily denies the possibility of at least some meaning of our existence.

    In general, when applied to a worldview (any), the first question is not “what is its meaning, and whether it exists at all”, but whether you share it or not.

    Atheism is the doctrine of a random meaningless world, and of a person deprived of free will and freedom of choice, its integral part. What's the point of that?

    PS the funny thing is that from the point of view of atheism, atheists do not choose this worldview. This is neither their fault nor their merit. Everything depends solely on the” genetic program embedded in a person ” and the complex of his conditioned (and predetermined) reactions to external stimuli.

  26. The positive meaning of atheism was to free the mind from religious dogmas. But religions are not only and not so much dogmas and rituals, as the direction of a person to know himself, his own mind, to know the essence of life and all existence.

    At present, the positive meaning of atheism is exhausted. Now this is a rather limited concept of the world order, which existed in ancient times.

    Once again, the point is not in descriptions of the world, whether they are religious or atheistic, but in direct knowledge, which is deeper than the mind and therefore inexpressible.

  27. Religions didn't “at least try.” They have accepted it as an axiom and insist that everyone else accept their statement as true. And they did it a long time ago, when there was much less knowledge about the world.

  28. We will never fully understand how the world works: the process of learning is endless, and every new knowledge entails new questions.

    The point of atheism is precisely to seek and find answers by studying nature and man, and not to refer to the will of the “higher mind” every time we encounter something that is not yet understood.

  29. No one will ever prove the existence or absence of God. In this sense, all people can be considered potential believers. But few people believe in fairy-tale religious events. When humanity stops believing in the ascension of Christ, all Christian religions will lose all meaning.

  30. The point is a scientific approach to any question-observation, experience, experiment, etc. If something is not scientifically proven, then it is not proven. And there is no reason to believe that it exists. God is an unscientific concept. When scientific evidence becomes available, atheists will recognize its existence. But not yet.

  31. The meaning of atheism is a purposeful struggle with God. It is supervised by Lucifer himself, helped by three-yard crowds of demons who sow disbelief in the supreme mind that created and preserves all things (visible and invisible)

  32. The meaning of atheism is to tear a person away from God, deprive him of moral guidelines, replace the eternal with temporary, the best with cheap, replace happiness with pleasure, etc.
    There are two natures in man – divine and fallen, and man always chooses between them. Atheism is a delusion whose true task is to justify the distortions caused by the damage to the divine in man.

  33. The meaning of atheism is to deny the unknown, and this means that there is no meaning. Religions at least look for this meaning, atheists INVENT it. Believers rely on a higher power, atheists rely on mathematics. And you will see, as soon as a new theory pops up, there is also a mathematical justification for this nonsense. Hawking spent his entire life studying what is still not proven, and is recognized as a great scientist. so what is the meaning of atheism, if the same Hawking before his death recognized that there is something that is beyond our knowledge (science)?

  34. And atheism does not imply that there is no supreme intelligence, only calls into question the unproven and mutually contradictory theses of believers. Until the supreme intelligence is proven, it is fraudulent to speak for it. The logic here is that if there is no God and the world is material, then the atheists are right and nothing will change. If God exists and the world is metaphysical, then atheists are wrong and the world will not change. Neither the first nor the second part affects the boiling point of water, nor economic relations, nor the gravitational constant.This means that in scientific thinking, God is not a participant in the experiment. for a believer – that the boiling point of water, that the work of the photon output depends not only on the material, but also on the will of God, and a number of questions can not be asked at all. Total – when the society is secular, the maximum discomfort for a believer is the censure of society, when the society is religious-you have the risk of burning at the stake for thinking about the existence of microbes or heliocentrism. You will agree that the atheistic approach, up to its Soviet version, is many times less painful for believers than the religious one for non-believers.

  35. Atheism is useful from a practical point of view, as it creates critical thinking and a skeptical attitude, which in turn allows us not only to blindly believe in something, but also to check whether it is true. And this is what drives science and evolution forward. That is, atheism gives an impetus to understand: is there really a Creator or is it imposed by religion?

  36. From the point of view of science we can never confirm or deny the existence of gods etc

    Atheism is different. There are consistent and inconsistent, idealistic and materialistic.

    Only materialistic atheism, which includes a rational and materialistic approach to the study of the world, makes sense.

    This concept speaks about the self-sufficiency of the world, about its dialectical laws of development. And in general, it is from this point of view that we can say that the world is knowable)

  37. once I had a dream that humanity was not so good without the “supreme mind” and without the belief that all their actions will be compensated, and then it was decided to go back in time and give people a religion…..

  38. It's just stupid to patch holes in the field of knowledge with rags from the naked king's dress. It won't help to fix the tent, it will only help to dampen the need to fix it. You say the word “god” or “miracle”, and it seems that you are no longer ignorant, but the essence is fundamentally unknowable.

  39. The world's religions did not attempt to describe anything. They exist solely to fool people and facilitate the management of the herd and financial flows. Atheism doesn't make much sense either: proving to believers that their imaginary friend doesn't exist is a pointless waste of energy.

    A person who has a sufficiently developed brain simply will not waste time on religious nonsense.

  40. The same as believers ,they believe without seeing evidence of the existence of God, atheists do not believe knowing that there is no evidence. Stupid question ! don't ask any more questions here)

  41. Well, yes, of course. Perhaps the same thing should be done in court decisions-

    It does not matter that it is not known who the criminal is, “they have not understood yet”

    who and how committed the crime, let's just call the criminal

    toss a coin and it's good! After all, we at least tried to solve the problem with the crime at least in this way. Beautiful method

    ,ts “religious”, it should be extended everywhere and to everything. Scientists will be especially pleased – well, why the hell suffer, wade through impassable blockages and problems in complex problems of science, when it is quite simple and without problems to solve everything,” as in religions ” – to believe

    “on the word” to any ancient or modern idiot and crook, or toss a coin. Forward guys to the bright future of pithecanthropes!

  42. Atheism is a form of theism. Atheism does not exist without theism, as every atheist can see. Atheism is simply a dislike of the word theism and a love of the word atheism, because the recognition of the Big Bang and Gravity as the meaning of everything is a recognition of their theistic nature, which, according to the peculiarities of the mind, is recognized only as atheistic

  43. The Buddha said, ” don't trust what�you�heard; not�trust the traditions�as their�passed from�generation to�generation; not�trust anything, if it�is hearing or�the majority opinion; not�trust, if it�is just recording the statements of some old sage; not�trust hunches; not�trust what�you�believe to be true, to�what you�used; not�trust one bare authority of your teachers and�elders. After observation and�analysis when he�consistent with�mind and�contributes to the welfare and�use one and�everyone, then accept it�and�live according to him. “

    I think atheists could agree with this text. But atheism is limited to the knowledge of the world, which is revealed through the senses and scientific instruments, which are extensions of the senses. Models, theories and laws of the material world are built on the basis of these data of direct perception.

    But our world is not limited to what is directly perceived.

    Buddha, Christ, or Krishna did not attempt to describe the world; they knew the Truth precisely from their own experience. The main thing in world religions is not what they describe-it's all relative, but where they lead – to the knowledge of the Truth, God, the Absolute. But the fact is that the knowledge of the absolute Truth cannot be transmitted to another, everyone discovers it himself. And although it is one for all, eternal and unchangeable, it is ineffable and indescribable.

    The reason for this is not some special mystery or incomprehensibility. It's just that all relative truths, and indeed any statements in general, are separate from me: I can agree with them or reject them, discuss them and clarify them. The Absolute Truth, God, cannot be separated from the knowing subject, God is hidden in the very depths of the one who knows him, in his source. It is possible to stay in it, but it is impossible to describe it.

  44. In real life, we never have complete information, we need the ability to work with approximate, not absolutely accurate data. The difference between the approach to analyzing information of a convinced dogmatist and a critical atheist is that the latter will say:: “we don't have enough information, so let's try to decide which answer is most likely.” And he will understand that his data on the issue is very rough, preliminary and, in general, may turn out to be unreliable. If they are really bad, then a consistent atheist will not use them, but will honestly admit that there is no answer yet. For example, we can assume that there are other civilizations in the universe besides us, but the reason to believe that this is possible is not the reason to believe that it is so. So we have to say that we don't know for sure yet. It is quite reasonable to refrain from answering, although this is important only when we prioritize obtaining reliable information.

    (By the way, by an atheist I mean not just an anti-clerical person, but an epistemologically literate person who observes scientific skepticism)

    This is not what an Orthodox believer does. Therefore, he can easily explain Hurricane Katrina as” sinful ” behavior of homosexuals. And to study meteorology is to take the risk that the honest answer will be “we only know with certain accuracy”, which is even worse: “the storm has nothing to do with homosexuals”. Such a believer does not need reliable information, his “method of knowledge” solves other problems: he needs to justify his worldview, induced by all sorts of gaps in knowledge, by any hook or crook, to consider himself right, and his opponent a naive fool. This has nothing to do with knowing anything. It happens, of course, that a believer is not like that at all, but the very idea of belonging to a particular denomination encourages some conscious bias in various matters, increasing the risk of its manifestation at the wrong time.

    And now in order. We pay attention to the root of the word “atheism” and remember what theism is. We take any theistic god, forget about absolute proofs as a class, and discover the simple Bayesian theorem. What can we say from the point of view of probability theory, for example, about the Bible in general and its theistic god in particular? Okay, it's just that I personally don't know anything else, and the Bible is pretty simple and revealing.

    We know 0 (zero) mechanisms of resurrection of people; we know 0 (zero) documented reliable cases of resurrection of people; we know very well the mechanisms that occur during brain death; all scientific data indicate the irreversible nature of brain death and the rapid destruction of brain structures in the first minutes and tens of minutes after death; at the same time, we have 0 (zero) evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, that he exists now and very incorrect information about the fact that Jesus was a real historical person at all. We also have thousands of myths and religious texts from various nations, including the Bible, where people are resurrected in batches: as we remember, the Bible teaches that when Jesus was resurrected, many resurrected prophets were seen in the city. All this tells us that the probability that he really has been resurrected is as close to zero as possible. And the probability that this is just another mythological text is almost one.

    From here, we smoothly move on to the concept of non-falsifiability. The non-falsifiability of a hypothesis or statement does not mean that it is false — it is a hypothesis whose truth we cannot verify. We basically don't know if it's false or true. On the other hand, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” With this useful principle in mind, the idea that a human being rose from the dead can be interpreted as if science has no explanatory power in this aspect. However, as is well known, we use theories, connect them, build predictive models, and everything works very well for us. Science is a self — correcting probabilistic mechanism, one of the principles of which states that any knowledge is only an intermediate interpretation of the truth. Knowledge is supplemented and refined. Everything is OK.

    Back to Jesus again. It is important to understand a simple thing: the Christian god is not a deistic god, and the emphasis on reality beyond physics directly contradicts the Bible. On the contrary, theistic god, according to religious texts, directly affects reality and, thus, is completely falsifiable. The presence of claims about alleged healings, the descent of the holy Fire, survival in the belly of a whale, multiple resurrections, the birth of a child by a virgin, the journey of the Israelites from Egypt through the desert, and so on, etc., give ample opportunities for direct refutation of information from the Bible. In this regard, only the arbitrary designation of inconvenient parts of the text as “metaphors” allows the believer to resent the scientific analysis of his book. But this outrage is at least strange, and in general — unfounded. And even if the Bible is indeed an ingeniously composed text that requires reading between the lines, it is not difficult to show that millions of people around the world understand the Bible texts precisely as a literal narrative, and reading between the lines is a method so lax and arbitrary that I don't even want to touch it.

    (And if someone seriously believes that the Bible is a brilliant text, then here is a visualized representation of contradictions, funny inconsistencies:�BibViz Project – Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized. Or a list.)

    Of course, you can also remember that the biblical god is a moral light that encourages “right “actions, gets angry and punishes for”wrong” ones. And here, after all, just a whole field opens up for scientific/statistical experiments.

    Summing up only the above facts, we can say that the probability of the existence of a given god tends to zero. The same can be said of all the theistic deities that we know from mythological and religious texts.

    It is also funny that with the advent of photo and video shooting, all sorts of resurrections and miracles have surprisingly stopped, and with the advent of psychiatric standards of the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'level for some reason, we stopped observing crowds of prophets, and even began to treat them differently.

    Meanwhile, many believers adhere to the position of “God of white spots“, and in particular the concept of clinging to the workers of cults, but this is only my personal and modest sample. In an attempt to rationalize their delusions, they believe that there are unsolvable questions that prove the existence of God, but persistently do not give reasons to believe so. However, the complexity of the questions asked is not only not a reason to consider the question unsolvable, but, as a rule, it is a sign of superficial acquaintance with the problem under consideration, and sometimes a sign that the question is simply stupid and unscientific. I think it would be superfluous to say that our modern civilization can exist only thanks to science and technological progress, which together solve such complex issues that a casual person can not imagine.

    Of course, having evolved under more primitive conditions, our brains are designed to constantly look for patterns and make long-range predictions. In the animal world, survival is ensured by avoiding serious mistakes of the second kind (for example, as a result of misinterpreting external signals, such as the rustle of leaves, you risk being eaten by a predator), and instead you often make minor mistakes of the first kind. But there are counterintuitive things: say, where did the universe come from? How can you model the desire to find a pattern in your head and at the same time take into account the inexplicability of such phenomena? It is in this cauldron that gods, miracles, and even fears are born.

    Moral: if a person abandons science in favor of God or makes a compromise (in Russian: sits on both chairs), he deliberately lowers the standards of proof in everything. High standards of evidence guarantee us acceptable reliability of responses, thereby reducing the potential risks associated with irrational beliefs. The decision to lower the standards of proof if you are interested in the truth (or its intermediate state) is never an acceptable idea. Now we have no objective reasons to believe that there are gods and miracles. We do not take subjective reasons into account for the reasons described above. I would like to take this opportunity to read books by Daniel Kahneman and Pascal Boyer:�Thinking, Fast and Slow и Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought соответственно.

  45. The point of atheism is not to find answers to the most important questions, but to declare them nonexistent, unimportant, or even harmful. And then live as you want, without answering to anyone.

  46. The meaning of atheism is to know the world through experiments, and to confirm their laws, and to search for evidence of these laws. Religion interferes with this search for knowledge, because religions are based on dogmas that do not require proof, and cannot be questioned. Atheists are hindered by these dogmas, because they question not only these very religious dogmas, but also their hypotheses.

  47. There is such a thing as deism.

    A worldview that presupposes the creator, but not as a religious god, with heaven/hell and other things.

    The creator may well not exist, and the universe appeared either just like that, or as a result of processes that the human mind is not able to recognize.

  48. That is, you propose to believe in the Supreme Mind until we fully understand how our world works?))) and as soon as we understand everything, we don't need to believe it anymore?)))
    Do you put a statement in the question that we will ever understand how our world works?))
    If yes, then the step of waiting for this moment is superfluous, and according to your logic, you can simply not believe in God right away (the wording of the question leads to this answer)
    A lyrical digression…
    It is not possible to fully understand how the world works. The language of the universe is still not understood. Human tools for learning this language of nature are probably not always perfect and suitable. To describe some of the new discovered laws, especially in elementary particle physics, they came up with a completely different mathematical apparatus, since the existing one did not allow describing phenomena.
    A person tries to describe and decipher the language of the universe with different crutches, but it doesn't work out to the end.
    Even if some regularity (often deduced empirically) works more or less normally within certain limits, the nature of this regularity cannot be fully understood, and probably it will never work – isn't it beautiful?)
    I believe that it is impossible to connect faith in God and the fact of knowing/not knowing the universe. Even if we assume that we fully understand how our world works, this does not answer the question of whether there is a God or not. So what if they understood? Where is the logical step to saying that there is no God?
    Probably, the step towards the statement that there is a Higher Mind is not obvious either.
    The question may help to answer: how did it all start? What Force gave rise to the world?
    It is logical that there should be some Primary Source of all the excitations and laws of mathematics and physics.
    Another logical question is: Is this Source Reasonable or not?
    I would draw an analogy with a 3D printer. The printer is not intelligent, and it can” independently ” print figures from reasonable people, if there is a power source and a program.
    Here, the 3D printer itself is the universe. The program that will print is a law of nature, and the figure that it prints is the embodiment/implementation of the law of nature.
    Is it possible to say that an unreasonable printer has always existed and no one created it, programmed it, or supplied power to it?))) The question needs a reasonable answer))) Obviously, this device was created by an intelligent Being)))
    Think for yourself)))

  49. This is a very interesting question for me, because I am in contact with the Supreme Intelligence, as you call it! So I'll try to explain it in an accessible way. The very meaning of atheism is not there! It is designed to refute the postulates of religion. Second! To fully understand how our world works, this is a publicity stunt to attract attention! therefore, it is not possible to fully understand how our world works! Because of the small capacity of our brain! not to mention programming our brains. Is there a Supreme Intelligence? – Yes, there is! But by saying this, I am pushing you into an abyss from which there is no way out, and the only joy is that you will know what no one believes! Want to be, no want to be considered idiots? I can tell you how to become one! But I don't recommend it! Better yet, just live like people – less nastiness and meanness! And who can decide for the Supreme Mind-to whom he wants, he will open! and finally, to describe the Supreme Mind, our mind is not possible, just because It is not Possible! But each of the religions reveals the Creator, for our understanding! A person is used to lying! Remove the lies and get the Creator! But then there will be a hundred more questions, but more complex! And you need it! One piece of advice from God, or the Supreme Intelligence: Do not humiliate anyone, and do not offend anyone! I will keep silent about the reward for this, because it is above all! Good luck!

  50. Speaking of atheism as antireligious, you can open any religious texts and evaluate the demiurges there and what kind of game they created and ask the followers if they are serious, but this is not essential.

    However, I suggest you watch an excerpt from the German TV show “Die Anstalt”, where just this is all very beautifully presented:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dou54bM7llM

    I'd go the other way. Person. Man is already creating worlds! Of course, they are simpler than ours, because it is impossible to create another world inside our world, what a person creates is much simpler.

    Here I wanted to give such examples (of which the most interesting is virtual realities inhabited by artificial personalities), but then I came across this picture:

    So in the demiurge-human relationship, the alignment is the same: the demiurge is as much beyond the understanding of a person as the beekeeper is beyond the understanding of a lone bee.

    Perhaps the bees pray to the beekeeper and worship him at some level of their understanding and perform some actions “in His name” (as far as they understand this), but if the beekeeper takes these prayers to him, then something is very wrong with him. Which basically coincides with the conclusions, for example, about the Christian demiurge described in the Bible, where he has the image of a very emotionally unstable person (see the link above, they described it better and with examples), but worshipping a sociopath described in the Bible is generally not a very healthy topic.

    So, it turns out:

    1. You can't create a world that is as complex as the world you live in, so the world where it actually exists is many orders of magnitude more complex. By the way, I do not recommend starting to think about the topic “does” God ” live in some other plane of reality? And he may not be the only one there? And that plane of reality was also created by someone else? Who then created the “Creator”?”, you can go into recursion
    2. A being many orders of magnitude more complex than a human being is impossible to comprehend.
    3. For such a being, even the highest human manifestations (of course, they seem to be the highest only from the point of view of Homo) are insignificant.

    Hence the conclusion — worship is meaningless and it remains to choose between atheism and agnosticism.

  51. The meaning of atheism is respect for man as a product of evolution. Not a manifestation, even of a higher one, but of a whim. The meaning of atheism is in the logic of knowing life, which is not found in faith. The meaning of atheism is in materialism. Then everything is complicated, so I'll limit myself to this.

  52. The point of atheism is that we are biorobots (genetic robots). And religion fools us, tries to impose on us that we are some kind of slaves of God(more like the devil), also makes us believe in the delirium of the soul (perhaps an internal memory associated with dreams, visions and other garbage).

  53. The meaning of Atheism is to establish the boundaries of faith in God. Crossing this border means the beginning of faith in something else: the devil, demons, etc. Therefore, Atheism can be represented as a belief in a person.

  54. What is the meaning of atheism? Desecrating a person, nothing else. If life is only a period of time with a maximum of 90-100 years, in reality 70-80, and sometimes much less, then what is the meaning of life? Eat, shit, and breed your own kind of gobblers and shits, and eventually lie down in the ground as fertilizer??? Just as all the art of humanity, all the flights of thought, science, and so on are designed only to serve the eating-eating organism? Which will die and the burdock will grow. May God save me from such a wretched and decadent philosophy! Everything in life has value only in the perspective of eternity, everything temporary is valuable only in the way it affects the eternal. Religion at least provides an answer to the question of the meaning of life, no science does not give this answer, and never will.

  55. If we accept the existence of a higher intelligence (God), then science is trying to reach at least the clues to the structure of the world created by him, and so far it is doing it successfully, including thanks to the invariable rule-check..

    Religions, on the other hand, try to imitate “knowledge about God himself” by simply spreading babbling discussions about an unknown subject beyond our understanding, and arranging stupid rituals that can in no way be connected with the higher mind and its will. Like plankton dancing in front of a whale.

  56. There is a lot of talk and speculation on this topic – is there a Higher intelligence? For me personally, this issue has long been closed. The proof that the Supreme Intelligence or Creator exists is the universe, our blue planet, the entire animal and plant world, and of course man-the “crown” of all creation on earth. In the world, nothing happens by chance, you need to work hard on everything, do a good job. A reasonable person does not need to puzzle, if suddenly he sees a house in the desert, he will immediately understand that someone built it, someone's hand. So, someone has done a great job on the Universe. And it was and is a Wonderful, Wise and Loving Designer! In the universe, everything is thought out to the smallest detail, all the laws work properly, our Earth is in the perfect place, at the perfect distance from the sun and moon! So that you and I can live on it! And man is created so that we can also create, bring our ideas to life! The Creator has given us such abilities! So, did the universe appear by accident or was it created by someone? For me, the answer is obvious – there is a Higher intelligence, a Creator God! Yes, there are atheists who deny all these facts.

  57. Religions, in fact, did the same thing that science does, only without a clear evidence base. All the same, there is an attempt to describe the work of the universe, based only on a fairly narrow range of knowledge and capabilities.

  58. Good day to you!

    What is the meaning of religions, if we still do not fully understand how our world works and whether there is a Supreme mind in it, which atheists at least tried to describe?

    This way it will be more correct.

    Instead of learning and doubting, as “atheists” do, religion, taking advantage of the lack of enlightenment of the people, imposes its point of view and will on them. And if we take into account that all religions are invented by people, then it turns out that the meaning of religions is the subordination of one group of people to another group of people.

  59. I think that many people will disagree with me, but I believe that science is today the largest reverence and the most extensive religion, which, in turn,has all the shortcomings of any other religious denomination…

    The initial stage of education is an absolute blessing, people are taught to write, count, read sometimes and think…
    But then, brick by brick, the building of knowledge is being formed, law by law…
    What is the basis of any religion?
    Believe!
    What is the basis of education?
    That's right, believe!
    As a result, a person with a higher education is reflexively filled with ideas about knowledge, all that he can remember, that is, such a law,..
    How is it smeared? Ah, that's the second question…
    But even this is even worse, when a person realizes that his building of knowledge has bricks that are not so hard, and the whole building is about to collapse…
    From such bricks: Darwin's theory, the law of universal gravitation…

  60. The Old Testament describes the origin of the universe in an allegorical form, how many galaxies there were before the Flood and how many of them are now. Adam and Eve are the forerunners of all things in the visible universe.

  61. Etymologically and in essence, ATHEISM is NOT THEISM, that is, not a religion or, if you want, outside of religion. In this regard, atheists 'denial of the existence of “God” is nonsense. Any denial or, on the contrary, agreement that causes diametrically opposite perceptions in different people always generates a dispute between them (polemic, discussion, etc.). This is where the main thing begins, because to start a dispute, its SUBJECT or at least a hypothetical sign of the possibility of its (subject) existence is necessary first of all. According to theologians of all times and peoples, the letter combination ” god ” does not contain a single sign of the subject of dispute itself. Under these circumstances, the dispute simply has nothing to arise on, that is, there is not a single reason for its occurrence. In this case, what are the veruns endlessly arguing about with people who call themselves atheists? Everything is very simple The dispute is about RELIGIOUS FAITH, which in fact is exactly the subject that I mentioned above. So that no self-respecting atheist has the right to fall so low as to engage in a POINTLESS ARGUMENT with anyone. I am always ready to argue with arguments that Verun is wrong in his religious preferences, but I cannot physically argue about a subject that simply does not exist. In this way, you will find at least one single sign of this item – a dispute is possible, and if not, then a dispute in the absence of it is simply impossible.

  62. If we don't fully understand it yet, then what is the meaning of faith? Coupled with this, the question will sound fairer.
    The meaning of both is that a person has the right to preach truths that are more convenient for him.
    Of course, the main thing in all this is not to impose anything on anyone and not to prove it foaming at the mouth, accusing them of stupidity and wanting to die. A smart person, regardless of their preferences, will not throw stones at dissidents.
    I don't believe in God, but I have nothing against religious people if they don't try to convince me, and adequate believers behave the same way. And this applies not only to religion, but in general to any sphere where opinions are divided into two or three camps.
    This is how I wrote it, because of the beginning of a controversy about someone's rightness or wrongness.

  63. Unfortunately, many people's atheism is based on reasoning like:the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs,priests support the authorities and drive expensive cars or on personal negative experiences from communicating with priests.About the proofs of the existence of God,Kant's thoughts about it, most people have never even heard of it.And there is no question of a clear refutation of the latter.I am ,of course, talking about my own personal experience.

  64. Um, well, the point is that you (probably) believe in this supreme intelligence, but atheists don't. If you want me to believe, then you have the cards in your hands, go ahead and prove it.

Leave a Reply