- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No. These expressions are not the same thing.
When a person speaks: “I don't believe in God”, then you can immediately ask him the question: “What God do you not believe in?!”or” What God do you believe in?!”.
The Romans in antiquity considered Jews and Christians to be godless.
The Jews believed in one god, and the Romans believed in many gods. The belief in one god was fundamentally wrong, because from the Roman point of view, one god could not be responsible for all the diversity of the world. Moreover, the hierarchy of Belief in the Gods was broken, between the Main Gods and the Gods who stood below and were responsible for their divine powers. The faith of Christians in general was perceived as an ugly perversion, because a person could only believe in a suspended corpse with violated morals and elementary human norms. Therefore, Christians were attributed, for example, svalny sin or the murder of infants.
Approximately the same as the Romans, a modern Hindu with a complex system of gods (up to about three thousand) believes.
“I don't believe in God “is something a modern Buddhist, Taoist, or Shintoist might well say, simply because there is no concept of”god” at all in these religions.
The second expression is the same: “I believe that there is no God” is internally contradictory and is used, as a rule, by those who believe in God, which means that believers are simply limited by this philosophy. And in their opinion, atheists “believe” that there is no God.
But even in terms of the semantics of the language-you can not believe in something that is missing, or as the atheists themselves answer banally: “you can not smoke without tobacco.”
Atheism is precisely the Knowledge that there is no God. This Knowledge is based on the contradictory nature of both the concept of God and its implications. Therefore, an atheist does not need proof of the existence of God, which in turn is not available to believers themselves (Religious Faith is irrational, and therefore it is only a desire to perceive the world in a special way without connection with its reality).
Atheism is the desire of a person to know the world and himself without religious ideas or concepts on the basis of the existence of the World itself, on the basis of the reality of the world.
So an atheist will never say, “I believe there is no God,” he will say: “I know there is no God.”
In ancient times, the gods were located in a nearby grove. When man learned a little more about the world, the gods found the highest mountain and settled on it. But man did not stop in the pursuit of knowledge, and the gods or god fled to heaven. And when Gagarin went out into Space, the” dwelling ” of God completely moved beyond the most distant galaxies… And since our universe is infinite, then God will constantly run away to this infinity. It turns out that God is the infinite cowardice of meeting man. I don't believe it, I know.
“I believe there is no God” is the definition given by the religious culture to atheists. Based on ITS associations.
An atheist does not believe in God, does not need him, and considers this concept redundant and unsubstantiated.
At first glance, yes, but there is a fundamental difference between these positions. In the first case, there is a rational doubt that does not allow us to believe in Mithras, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, etc. since there are no facts of their objective existence. In the second – irrational faith, since there are also no facts of non-existence of God, fairies, elves, etc. somewhere in the universe or even outside it.
Believers like to call atheists “believers” in the absence of God. They thus seem to rehabilitate their faith, but, in fact, this is only a demagogic device. Any dictionary of the Russian language will clarify the concept of “atheist”.
I think that this is just an incorrect construction of sentences that try to express the meaning of the fact that God does not exist.
Therefore, despite the incorrectness of both sentences, the semantic concept is the same.
God is the cause of the world. It is a Higher Intelligence
who created the world by laws (Logos).
Therefore, we replace the word God with its meaning Higher Intelligence and get:
The world is there.
“I don't believe that the reason for the world is Reason”
“I believe that the reason for the world is not Reason”
The third is not given.
From the point of view of spelling, both expressions are synonyms.
If we take the semantic series as a basis, then the original expression does not give an unambiguous statement of the negation of God, but carries a hidden opposition of the Divine Thought Form to an Idea similar in structure and functionality, that is, there is a belief in something inexplicable.
In the second statement, the author gives an affirmative conclusion denying the Divine Providence in people's lives.
Not quite. “I don't believe in God” can mean that a person recognizes the existence of God, but does not believe that God is of any use. “I believe there is no God” is the correct word for an atheist. You can only believe it.
An old casuistic trick… Hello by the way.
Is the glass half empty or half full? However, the funny thing is that there is no ma xima in both statements – because in both there is… God. Both utterances contain the word, and in the word the very concept, ” and the Word is God.”
Thus, the recognition of God is the recognition of the concept of Him. And back again. And further… ” Is it true that the statement “I don't believe in a devil” and “I believe that there is no chetra” are the same thing? Gymnastics of the mind. Useless as love on the Internet. I'm sorry.
It's probably the same as saying to someone, ” I don't believe you, or I don't believe you exist.” Or even funnier -“I believe you're gone” Sounds like the same thing?
I see that these are different things.
The second implies the first.
And from the first, the second does not follow.
“I don't believe in [existence] God ” – this belief is shared by both atheists (the so-called “weak atheists”) and agnostics, who simply do not have any beliefs in controversial issues for them.
Agnostics prefer to remember their ignorance and do not hesitate to state it. I think we have a lot to learn from them.
“I believe that there is no God” – this is more like the position of a “strong atheist” who not only does not have faith in the existence of God,but puts forward the opposite, negative judgment.
Such a formulation would suit a strong atheist who is honest with himself: a judgment that does not logically follow from knowledge is not accepted on faith otherwise. It is a pity that not all people are willing to be honest with themselves and accept faith in judgment where it belongs.
On the other hand, I adjusted the wording above for greater accuracy. It's only a question of the existence of God, isn't it?
The fact is that in the Christian sphere, the question of the existence of God does not have any decisive significance. The mass of people are convinced that the mere opinion that God exists can radically change the future fate of man, save him from destruction. At the same time, they forget that “There is a God” is just an opinion and in itself it has no force or meaning.
The Apostle James defined such faith as dead: “You believe that there is one God: you do well; and the devils believe and tremble. But do you want to know, you groundless man, that faith without works is dead? ” (James 2: 19-20)
James sets an example for believers of Abraham, who not only believed that God exists, but also trusted God and his will. God said, and Abraham believed and did according to his word. It was this faith that united Abraham to God. This faith was imputed to him as righteousness. This is more than just the “there is a God” view. It was a whole life based on the unity, communion and cooperation of man with God.
I believe that this is the kind of faith that you should look closely at, and not run between two opinions: “There is a God, there is no God.” There's no point in running around like a bagel hole.
These are different statements. Buddhists don't believe in God. Don't believe in God pofigisty. If you find fault with the rules of the Russian language, then representatives of a bunch of religions, including Muslims and Hare Krishnas, do not believe in God (with a capital letter, i.e. the biblical God, since only for Him the word “God” is a proper name, and not a common noun).
Specifically, atheists believe that there is no God. Their object of faith is the future omnipotence of science.
If this is said by an atheist, then yes (although they can argue with me here: -)), because a person believes in God or does not believe, this is all the level of faith, that is, a certain subjective feeling, subjective inclination, etc. But even someone who understands that God exists objectively can say “I don't believe in God.” That is, such a person does not need to believe in God, he knows that God exists. And he knows it well, at the level of reason and logic, as well as practical experience.