20 Answers

  1. Atheism is the refuge of the misguided and proud.

    I keep repeating it. The human brain and Mind are different things, concepts, substances, and phenomena.

    The brain is treated with pills, powders, potions, injections, surgery, electricity. Matrerial. HardWare. Development and existence in genetics, biology and Darwin.

    The mind is treated with conversations, interpretations, reasonings, statements, instructions, prayers, explanations. Intangible. SoftWare. Development in accordance with the meaning of life: To learn and teach. Help and ask for help. Try not to contradict the Lord's Commandments! The Bible.

    There is a dualism of the human structure.

    The mind can get lost and return to the truth. The brain can only go bad. It is difficult to restore it to its ideal working capacity.

    A bicycle without a cyclist can lie dead weight for as long as you want, until it rushes to powder. The human body can lie motionless until it rots.

    The Mind uses the Brain like a cyclist uses a bicycle, a motorist uses a car. It is used until the end of the biological and genetic program of brain life. After that, he departs from the destroyed habitual shelter and follows the Lord for further development and friendliness to Him.

    This information will not help atheists in any way. Although, maybe he who has ears-yes, he will hear! An empty community of people is atheism.

  2. Atheism can be compared to a fictional world or a fairy tale, which comforts itself brought up by certain life circumstances, adjusted by logic, the human mind. Yes, it is the belief that there is no God. In essence, atheism does not give answers to questions, but only deals with the denial of the existence of God, or something supernatural that brings it to the level of a religious sect, according to understanding, because the carriers of this inflated idea are guided by only one faith. Atheism itself has nothing but ramifying, parasitic, violent thoughts: 1) there are no mass leaders 2) there are no serious organizations 3) there are no countries and peoples that are completely atheistic (attempts to make countries non-believers and the result is less than 0.1%, do not count), 3) atheism, since ancient times, has not grown significant arguments, this idea has a catastrophically low number of followers (compared to the number of religious people) around the world. There is no evidence base for this idea, because: 1) it is impossible to make sure that there is no God. 2) It is impossible to involve science in proving the absence of God, because science does not deal with the spiritual world in any way, it does not have tools or devices to record the activity of the spiritual world. Science deals with the study of the material part of the universe and human nature. As a result, we can say, from a logical point of view, that atheism itself, as a current, does not exist, it is just an idea that lives in famous authors, writers, or scientists.

    Belief in the absence of God, in my opinion, characterizes the inner world of a person, due to the presence of protective mechanisms of the soul to plug holes in the conscience of a person who is used to living according to their own desires. Accordingly, faith in God will force a person to change their usual way of life, “dry up the swamp” of passions (if you take Christianity, the dominant religion in the world, for example), and this is not beneficial to any atheist. It is easier to be an atheist, if there is no God, then most of the moral burdens and burdensome thoughts are removed, and this, in my opinion, is the DNA of atheism.

  3. Atheism is not an inside-out faith.

    Faith Inside Out is Faith's Assessment of Unbelief,

    This is the problem of Believers-a feature of their worldview.

    In general, another of their misconceptions.

    Atheists think about Atheism differently – without the component of faith.

  4. Since the time of Bulgakov, the situation has changed. For now, this statement should be treated in the same way as its equivalent: “Faith is a highly experienced, inside – out atheism.” It sounds at least a little strange.

  5. I will answer the quote with quotes from the thinker and great writer with a naked conscience Vladimir Tendryakov:

    “A characteristic feature of any religious person is intolerance towards dissidents, non-believers, and non-sympathizers.”

    “Religious faith, by reason of its absoluteness, is hostile to the creative faith that contradicts it . Religious faith cannot recognize doubts, and faith and doubt are, strictly speaking, the process of thinking. It means that religious faith is incompatible with thinking, hostile to it in its nature.”

    The merit of atheists is to clear people's brains of anti-natural church dogmas that distort both the perception of reality and the very process of thinking.

  6. I understand this quote to mean that it wasn't uttered by a very smart person. In fact, atheism is simply a scientific worldview opposed to blind faith. And if a person simply thoughtlessly denies God, then he is just as much a believer as those whom he criticizes.

  7. So I understand – ATHEISM is a belief in yourself, as God! And why should such a god need other Gods?

    So, if you accept God as an Entity, you will have to humble yourself under the yoke His commandments! That's exactly what they don't accept!

    Their god is the spirit of the nihilism of God and the anarchism of the passions of the individual!

    In YOUR name!

    Thanks to Sergey Kuda's comment, I will correct my definition of the essence of atheism: -” … Atheism is the absence of information about God …”! In ideology, scientific information or in the consciousness of an individual!

    And based on this information, in the life of atheists begins what you read about first!

  8. Faith here refers to a belief of a general, methodological and ideological nature.

    The religious character of atheistic faith is given by the fact that the subject of this belief is the existence of God.

    The naivety here lies in the fact that atheists themselves do not notice how they enter the religious sphere.

    But atheism is a religious faith inside out because it sees its task not to confirm the existence of God, but the opposite.

  9. The idea is superficial and does not stand up to criticism. No, you will certainly find a fool who will shout that he is an atheist, but will not be able to explain it intelligently.

    Atheism assumes that knowledge must be supported by facts and precludes accepting anything at all on faith.

  10. Not necessarily naive. And not inside out. It is a type of faith with its own texts, authorities, heroes and martyrs. As in any other faith, you can't prove anything, you just have to believe

  11. Religion is a doctrine dedicated to God. Does atheism address any other issues? If so, it is called non-atheism. So it's also a religion. Despite not wanting to admit it, atheism does not have a demonstrable knowledge that there is no God. So this is faith. And on this side, it is also a religion. Inside out? I mean, what is the religion of denial? And then it's a matter of choice. Every believer will consider what they believe to be “fake”, and non-believers can be called naive – if they do not follow the words.

  12. As invented by believers and their pastors for their own convenience and as a very sad trump card in disputes with atheists.

    Atheism is not a faith, nor is it in any way related to the beliefs of religious people.

    At some stage, the atheist realized, realized, and was convinced that there is no God and no longer thinks about it, in general, in any way. And I am basically indifferent to such questions. Speak-heHe believes that there is no God, which is ridiculous and naive. He doesn't think about it. For him, God is the fruit of human myth-making, nothing more. And this is not so important and does not matter as much as believers imagine.

    It is very difficult for believers to accept that someone simply does not care and someone lives wonderfully without any Gods, without thinking about them, and about all this, in general. In their understanding, it is necessary to believe in something, and to believe exactly how they understand it, otherwise there is no way. This calms them down and regulates their perception of a world in which faith is the foundation of everything, even if it is built on denial.

  13. Atheism is not a belief, but a knowledge.

    Faith is not knowledge.

    And now try to understand your phrase about comparing them in naivety. ))

    Initially, atheism is defined as a commitment to knowledge and the definition of the primacy of matter over spirit. The naive beliefs of the ancients were, to some extent, and at one time, necessary for human evolution, but in the 21st century, such questions should be asked in an archaic way, at least)

  14. “Some Christian passengers began to cross themselves assiduously, while Muslims, with their eyes closed, put out their palms and prayed. Godless people tried to read glossy magazines, as if articles about resorts, cars and pop stars could save them.”

    M. Matkovsky, “The Parrot in the Bear's Den”

  15. well, in my opinion, atheism is not a faith. Rather, it is a heart vacuum that people strive to fill with something material, but always remain with an emptiness.

  16. How funny it is to read posts that atheists “believe” in the absence of gods, and are not just convinced of their absence, but profess an entire religion, and almost worship science. (Ha-ha-ha)
    Although in reality there is a “Church of Atheism” somewhere, it is only nominally considered a church.
    You might as well say that Christians are the ones who deny the existence of Zeus/Peruna, Jews-those who deny Baal, believers in the pagan pantheon of gods-those who deny the divinity of ancestral spirits, and ancient shamans-those who do not believe in the disbelief of the higher powers.
    And by the way, Pascal's wager does not take into account that the world's ideas about gods are different, and if we assume that there is a god, then there is no guarantee that he will turn out to be the same religion as the believer (and believers either do not respect the gods from another religion, or even call them demons). So if there is a God, then only those who guessed with the correct denomination will win.

  17. This is the thought of Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, a Russian religious philosopher who was exiled abroad after the revolution.

    Today I consider this idea to have lost its relevance, not because such atheism no longer exists, but because society has changed very significantly now. Where are Tolstoy, Korolenko, Dostoevsky, Plevako, Koni now? Where is the public discussion of the issues they raise?

    The atheism discussed by Bulgakov is a completely different phenomenon than it is now.

    Where is the sacrifice of the intelligentsia discussed by Bulgakov, the question of its responsibility to the people, service, and social repentance?

    This is not even close, and there is no church or secular religiosity associated with it. There is no dispute about whether this service should be realized in religious faith or in atheism.�

    So Bulgakov's words are taken out of context and completely incomprehensible.

    And yet, in spite of all this, it is well known that there is no intelligentsia more atheistic than the Russian one. Atheism is the common faith into which those who enter the bosom of the intellectual-humanist church are baptized, and not only from the educated class, but also from the people. I. This was the custom from the beginning, even from the spiritual father of the Russian intelligentsia, Belinsky. And just as every social environment develops its own habits, its own special beliefs, so the traditional atheism of the Russian intelligentsia has become a self-evident feature of it, which is not even mentioned, as if a sign of good taste. A certain degree of education, enlightenment, is in the eyes of our intelligentsia synonymous with religious indifferentism and denial. There is no dispute about this among different factions, parties, “trends”, it unites them all. This is what permeates the meager intellectual culture, with its newspapers, magazines, trends, programs, mores, and prejudices, just as breathing oxidizes the blood that then spreads throughout the body. There is no more important fact in the history of the Russian Enlightenment than this. At the same time, we have to admit that Russian atheism is by no means a conscious denial, the fruit of a complex, painful and prolonged work of the mind, heart and will, the result of personal life. No, it is most often taken on faith and retains these features of naive religious faith, only inside out, and this does not change due to the fact that it takes militant, dogmatic, scientific forms. This belief is based on a series of uncritical, unverified, and dogmatically incorrect statements, namely, that science is also competent to solve definitively the questions of religion, and moreover solves them in a negative sense; to this is added a suspicious attitude towards philosophy, especially metaphysics, which has also been rejected and condemned in advance.


    Dear friends, what kind of father is Belinsky now to atheist intellectuals?

    I can't resist quoting Belinsky:

    She (Russia) does not need sermons (she has heard enough of them!), nor prayers (she has repeated enough of them!), but the awakening of a sense of human dignity among the people, lost for so many centuries in mud and dung, rights and laws that are not in accordance with the teachings of the church, but with common sense and justice, and strict, if possible, their implementation. Instead, it is a terrible sight… a country where not only are there no guarantees for the individual, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, and there are only huge corporations of various service thieves and robbers.

    The questions are relevant, aren't they?;)

    Only there is no religious burning of atheists in an effort to solve these issues for a long time.�

    Bulgakov's words are not at all about school trolling by atheist believers and vice versa, they are about the mission of the intelligentsia. A slightly different discussion.

  18. Terminological confusion…Atheism is understood as numerous completely different models of the world(that our consciousness is not an ideal reflection of the world, that is, a model).Atheism of ignorance is possible-when a person simply does not burden himself with any abstractions that go beyond”I want to eat”,”I want to sleep”…ets.Ideological,militant atheism is possible-when a certain Theory of Everything,declared to be the ultimate Truth,must displace all competing ones.But atheism is also possible …What should I call it?…extra-religious, maybe.A person who adheres to this worldview follows the idea of �minimalism:try to explain based on what you already know.The believer sees the origins of human morality in the supreme law.I observe animals and see that their behavior is also not alien to a rather complex system of relationship rules.And where to draw the border-at the swarm of bees?flocks of birds?a wolf pack?groups of chimpanzees?Why should a universal rule that coordinates the existence of individuals for the survival of a species have the exception of a human, and not be considered the same developed adaptation?The believer sees the cause of the world as a higher power, in it-the explanation and meaning of being.As for the question of the cause of this power,its meaning, and explanations, the principle of unknowability is proclaimed.But this is just a transfer of the lack of an answer to the next stage.It is easier and more honest to answer-we don't know yet that there is a reason for this world(the big bang-yes, but what before?for?before it?), until they were able to explain the origin of life,the birth of consciousness.Once upon a time,we didn't even know about nuclear and weak forces,didn't know the biochemical and informational secrets of life,didn't understand the causes of lightning and volcanoes, epidemics and solar energy.As for the meaning of life….the consciousness trap.A person tries to justify all his actions,to give them a logical explanation:I did this for in order to…, I did this because…And it is not easy for him to accept the lack of any meaning in the world around him.That is, religion is just (including)a naive attempt to rationalize life, to give meaning to existence above it.It is also an attempt to avoid the unimaginable-infinity, death…A person who does not have such an illusion is forced to live in a world without purpose,without meaning,briefly and of course in the infinity of being.The only law that helps him live is the idea of life and reason as the highest value in itself.But this,of course, is a much weaker support than God and the eternity of the soul.The question is,what is more naive:to console yourself with the presence of the supreme, the wise, the all-knowing and the immortality of the individual, or to stand in the middle of a narrow circle of light of knowledge in the abyss of the unknown, realizing your brevity -and at the same time-working to the end to improve the lives of your relatives,your people,humanity(who has enough strength for what).

  19. Is it proven that there is no God? No, so people can only believe that it doesn't exist. In this respect, an atheist is no different from a believer, and he cannot provide scientific proof of what he believes.�

    That is, Atheism is the same thing as faith in God, only faith in his absence. That's how I understand this phrase.

  20. In my opinion, no one has ever been able to say anything better than “If atheism is a religion, then a bald head is a hairstyle.” Although there is probably some truth in the statement you mentioned: a large number of modern sofa atheists defend their “atheism” so fiercely that it becomes like fanatical religious nonsense.

Leave a Reply