9 Answers

  1. My religion is you :). Funny or silly as it may sound, it's true. In this case, you have created a situation for me, from which I have to somehow get out, answer something, give, so to speak, a report about… You and only you are the creator of this world. My answer is nothing more than a form of modern worship, a form of prayer to you.

    A wise man once said that a person is a part of the world, and the world is a part of a person. I will tell you that I am a part of you, and you are a part of me.

    I am not a theist, not an atheist, not a polytheist, not a Buddhist. But I do know that there is really only one single Religion that leads to the knowledge of the One and Only Being that is you.

    I know it's hard for you to be a God, but it's the right thing to do, isn't it?

  2. My theory is not supported either rationally or emotionally. There are a huge number of parallels with different faiths, occult and esoteric traditions, even with scientific theories, but these are all just parallels that do not prove anything. And from the emotional – several experiences of the divine presence (accidentally and in the creative process). Everything else is pure intuition (and faith, of course).

    In general, after a little digression, I will first tell you about the views of the world, without touching on the divine. I adhere to agnosticism, and – extreme. And, no, Kant is not my idol, it's just that he formed all such views (even rooted in antiquity) into a philosophical trend (I disagree with Kant about many things). So my life has developed that I have come to this idea – there is no zero or one hundred percent probability. I mean, I don't believe in anything. The world is completely unpredictable. The only thing that exists for sure is a law (the absence of laws in the universe is, let it be, the only one, but the law of this very Universe, for example), and I have heated discussions with thinkers about this (although there is nothing to oppose this yet). I've even taken my worldview to the point of being somewhat absurd: you may hear me say things like “I'm not sure”, “I'm not sure I'm not sure”, “I'm sure I'm not sure, but I'm not sure about the first one”, “I'm not sure I think and/or exist”. That is, I assume that the human race and everything that surrounds it can be a projection of the reflection of a simulation of the ejection of some distant sick convulsing consciousness (or “dog's dream”, if banal). Thus, I also allow the existence of the matrix (as it is described in the cult movie of the same name), for example.�

    What led me to this? Well, first of all, the wildest itch, which I can almost hear saying: “the world is not what it seems – do something about it.” Something like that. Secondly, the idea that took me somewhere at an early age, and did not let go. There are, for example, colorblind people. They feel (in this case, they see) the world is different. Not like us. We can explain this fact, even call it a deviation from the norm, but we will never feel the world as colorblind people feel it. Similarly, we won't see it the way dragonflies see it (from a 360-degree angle of view). And dogs have hundreds of times the range of detected stimuli of the sense of smell. Etc. This is said about sensory perception. As for the rational-there are paradoxes. The liar's paradox (“I'm lying”), Russell's paradox, the omnipotence paradox – in their case, our thinking is weak. We simply do not have an answer to this question, we cannot think it out – our logical thinking is not developed enough.

    What does this mean? That beyond the world we know, there may be a world of incredible volume, ours, in which there is a grain of sand. You've probably seen rough sketches of the outer space around us-superclusters and all that stuff. So, imagine that the whole vacuum is not really PTT (this is my abbreviation for the absence of being – “emptiness, silence, darkness”), but all the same world that we can see, hear, taste, smell, touch, realize. We just don't know how to do it yet. And either it extends over a vast distance in all dimensions, or it is infinite.

    Here we can ask two questions: do we need to expand the scope of our perception (mind) in order to understand the world around us in its entirety, and can we do this? I can't provide answers to both questions because I don't know them. And everyone decides for themselves. For me, for example, it arouses genuine interest. And the itch I was talking about.

    It was a preamble that boils down to one thing – I believe in the probability of everything (“I don't believe in anything” and “I believe in everything” – not quite correct, in this vein). And then it started…

    Over the past six months, a great many events have occurred in my life (in particular, writing poems and paintings with the feeling that someone did it with my hands for me while I was in a trance; suicide attempt; a radical change in lifestyle), which I will not describe here due to lack of time, but I seem to be getting closer to believing in something. Based on agnosticism, I always add “but it may not be so”to every postulate. But more and more I begin to get close to certain things and, if I don't fully believe in them, then behave as if they represent objective reality.

    Be prepared for the fact that it will be difficult to understand some points. I will try to express my thoughts as clearly as possible, but our conceptual apparatus is a bit of a mess, and I can't project images into your head (to my great regret). I have come to understand that all human beings, all self – aware beings, are one and the same essence. There is a certain ideal (as opposed to material) void, which is the mind, some parts of which are framed in a physical shell in the material world-a person (at birth) or disintegrate (at death). This is an eternal, infinite, dynamic and completely chaotic “soup” of consciousness – a person with the same set of parameters will never be born. Our vision of the world around us is extremely subjective – everyone understands it in their own way. Imagine that you and your friend are standing next to each other and looking at the moon. And eat chocolate ice cream. You can more or less describe this taste, and your friend's description will roughly match yours. But this description is a secondary product of your feelings. Unique sensations (remember the thesis about colorblind people and the rest). You will never be able to feel what the other person feels (taste, in this situation). And you look at the Moon from different positions (even if there is only a meter of distance between you), literally – from different points in the universe. And, accordingly, here your experience also differs. A small thing, but a great many of these small things make up the system of our perception. Thus, each person has their own model of the Universe in their head, and each person has a unique one (and it can be quite similar to others).

    You can think of it as a movie. Everyone, all his life, plays a movie in his head (which is this life), in which he is the main character. All the people who have an impact on his life (not necessarily familiar to him) are minor characters. And the remaining part of humanity (the overwhelming majority) in his life generally plays the role of extras and, to a greater extent, scenery. And all these unique worlds overlap and intersect in all possible ways – each such film exists relative to the others.In other words, people are of the same type, but they are unique, because you are a supporting actor (or a set piece) in someone else's film. But you play this role blindly – You see your film.

    And where is God here? In this context, I do not mean God as the creator of our universe, but simply an omnipotent being who has no frame of perception. Maybe they're not missing – I don't know if that's even possible. And someone created it then, if they're not the creator. But I could have created myself or existed forever – such reasoning is still beyond my control. But, let's say that there is an essence that has consciousness (or something similar), it is not a person (as a psychophysiological construct), and it is much more developed than a person, and even can influence our surrounding reality. This God is in all of us. It is (or is) located in our subconscious mind. Not the subconscious mind in the “consciousness-subconscious” dichotomy in classical academic psychology, but that part of the mind that is inaccessible to us (rather, incomprehensible or non-obvious). That is, all talented people, schizophrenics, geniuses, psychos, just creative people – all people with non-standard thinking (of varying degrees of development) turn to God for help (consciously or unconsciously) – to themselves. This God isYou. And I. And you are me, and I am you. Remember also Vernadsky's theory of the noosphere – not in its entirety, but the part in which there is a connection between each person and this very noosphere, which helps him to draw from it information of any kind, for some it is stronger, for others it is weaker. Inspiration, empathy, insight-these and other moments fall into the same category. We seem to be connected to each other a lot more than we think. Because we are God. By the way, I believe that absolutely all traditions and denominations see the same God in different images. Shiva, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha-all are manifestations of human perception in different cultures and circumstances at different times in different parts of the world (if these religions are at all sincere at the root, and not deliberate deception, of course).

    I also have a theory that God is some kind of objectified self-aware being who simply lives an infinite number of lives in people, but it's too early to tell me about this.

  3. Someone says-if there is a God, prove that he exists. But if it doesn't exist, who can prove it? You can't prove that it exists, but you can't prove that it doesn't exist. People can only believe or not believe.

  4. It's a little scary to answer this question, because for me this topic is quite personal, but I want to. I do not adhere to any religion, moreover, I consider them all absurd, since God in my understanding does not require any faith and worship, we are so insignificant and small for him that he is not interested and cannot be interested. I like the Masonic definition of God as a “Great Architect” in the sense that God is a force that has ordered this world, put the atoms in their places. At the same time, I believe that the further science goes, especially related to the study of the macrocosm and microcosm, the closer we are to this very “God”. �This is not some mystical spirit, a higher intelligence, the forces of nature, or something personified. This is the world order itself in the broadest sense, and it is God for me.

  5. A Catholic.

    As a student, I fell in love with Christianity, not least because of Kuraev. Even if it were wrong , it would be worth inventing, it is the pinnacle of thinking about a person, his place in the world and relations between people, the pinnacle of thinking about God.

    In addition, I gradually saw that delusional, obscurantist statements are not the position of Christianity, which is mandatory for all members, but only the opinion of specific people. There was nothing delusional or unscientific about Christianity itself. My conscience and reason should not have compromised and turned a blind eye to the obvious nonsense. It wasn't there.

    I studied Orthodoxy and Catholicism for a long time. From the point of view of teaching, only these churches are acceptable to me. But in the end I chose Catholicism. Orthodoxy is a nationalist religion, whether it is the Moscow Patriarchate, Romanian, Kievan, or Bulgarian… The bickering of Orthodox “Christian brothers” among themselves does not fit in my understanding with the spirit of Christianity, where everyone is equal regardless of nationality. Nationality and citizenship should play no role in matters of faith. In addition, Orthodox churches like to merge with the state, becoming an obedient tool of the authorities. It was also repulsive.�

    I'm a big fan of the papacy. The united church has a single leader, and there is no squabbling between its parts over primacy, independence, and the division of territories. The highest hierarchs of the church are not subordinate to any state and can behave independently without groveling before the authorities. Many other advantages of this denomination (for example, an excellent level of education, a well-developed structure of orders that solve various problems, the personalities of the last popes, etc.) are only a pleasant addition to the main thing.

    The first visit to the temple and the conversation with its inhabitants were both inspiring and slightly disappointing. We were disappointed in the fact that the evil Latins did not rush to turn me on the spot and drag me to them. They asked me for a long time why, living in Russia and having no family ties to Catholicism, I decided to come here. Whether my intentions are serious. The priests were not at all eager to seduce Kozlevich.�

    When I confirmed the firmness of my choice, it was time to be pleasantly surprised. There can be no talk of any baptism in the near future. The cross around your neck is not costume jewelry. To become a Christian, you need to understand the teachings of the church properly, so first – a year of training in the basics of faith.�

    Both the priest and the sister pleasantly impressed me with their education, common sense and erudition. It was a pleasure to go to classes and interact with these smart people. My preconceptions about Catholicism (that the Pope is sinless, etc.) were dispelled.By the way, they created a separate schedule of individual classes for me and did everything absolutely free of charge, despite the obvious employment and obvious need for money. In general, EVERYTHING was free. There was a donation bowl in the temple, but no one ever pushed me to throw a dime. Everything was left to their own discretion. Participation in the service, training, literature, various favors and help – everything was free. After the experience of applying to a nearby Orthodox church, where a price list was hung on the front door, this approach to money was impressive and once again confirmed the correctness of my choice.

    I'm still a bit of a Christian, but I try to keep my actions and thoughts in line with the spirit of Christianity. It doesn't always work out, but there is no doubt that the course is chosen correctly.

  6. Atheism is common, although I understand deists, agnostics and other doubters very well. I believe that the very fact that there is such an abundance of religions indicates that there is a necessary place in the consciousness for it (you can call it a natural need), but for me there is a contradiction here. There are many religions, each with its own fundamental principles of correctness, and if all this is considered in an objective world, in which, as it seems, there is a single course of things that certainly does not correspond to the diverse opinions of religious doctrines, then I see only one conclusion – it is not very reasonable, imho, to accept any religion on faith, if there are still a lot of similar ones In the cultural aspect, it is difficult for me to consider this, so only such primitive reasoning.�
    Of course, this is just one of the reasons why I don't take it seriously. And my policy of existence is simple – do not impose your worldview, live with respect for someone else's choice, listen first , then judge… and psychology is very adept at putting dots on these human laws. I.e. the most banal and good at first glance rules. But this is not a final conviction, this thing is changing very rapidly..

  7. There is no religion, there is a belief that the world exists on the principle of causality. We, as a part of this world, adhere to the same principle in all aspects of our activities.

  8. “…our god is called Abraxas, and he is both God and Satan, he includes both the light and dark world. Abraxas will not object to any of your thoughts or dreams. Don't forget that. But it will leave you if you become perfect and normal. Then he will leave you and find a new pot to brew his thoughts in.”

    Hermann Hesse

Leave a Reply