5 Answers

  1. a) The claim that religion does not contradict science is a lie. At any moment when religion begins to postulate an impact on reality (i.e., the great flood, recovery from prayer, etc.), it is directly included in the scope of science. Philosophical ideas about science (Jesus as a cultural archetype, etc.) – yes, but in this case there is no conceptual difference between god and superman.

    b) The only correct definition of “pseudo-atheists”is that they profess other irrational attitudes while postulating atheism, but this is, firstly, too broad a perception of atheism as rationality, and secondly, in principle, there are a lot of irrational people around.

    But all other things being equal, any pseudo-atheist is better than a believer, he has abandoned at least one stupid installation

  2. Because it's fashionable. It's so cool and absolutely not new to laugh at religious teachings that have been created for centuries, because “British scientists” have discovered that Jesus could not turn wine into water. For me, atheism now means pseudoscience. So many different nonsense will be found in these various public pages, which are divorced a lot, hiding behind the names of prominent scientists of our time. Vk has a public ateo, there are a lot of interesting things there. But the constant mockery of believers, of their worldview – has already begun to just irritate. sometimes it is impossible to read a tape where they admire the same performances of Dawkins. Of course, I understand that it's cool to troll believers in public, show how smart you are, and so on, but in real scientific circles this is called reasonableness.

    It is necessary to understand, and for a long time, science and religion go different ways and have different social significance, since you can compare completely different things. I believe that real scientists and real geniuses are engaged in science, and not in disputes with religion. And Dawkins reminds me of Zhirinovsky, it seems like the opposition, it seems to say things, but there is no sense.

  3. It seems to me that this is the reaction of the population to the way the state provides” assistance ” to religious organizations. Not all people approve of all these insults to feelings, missionary work in schools under the guise of religious history, and attempts to push creationism into the educational curriculum. This is perceived as pressure. In addition, the image that religious organizations have created for themselves is perceived negatively: stagnation, conservatism, authoritarianism, obscurantism. People who don't like it just go to the other extreme.

  4. Because: There are no atheists in the trenches under fire . In general, the dispute is eternal as life itself, personally I am closer to agnosticism than ostentatious atheism. And what is interesting, both from the religious, pseudo-religious masses and from atheists, such nonsense is declared with the most serious look that the hair stands on end. Both are equally disgusting. But atheism is fashionable , and it is more difficult to believe sincerely. So they flaunt atheism.

  5. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of God. They do not allow the existence of a supreme being at all, not by any particular denomination. A person who believes in Hell and Heaven cannot automatically be an atheist (who, then, regulates who goes where?) – one of the possible types of pseudo-atheism. At present, it is really very difficult to believe in the plausibility of the events described in the holy scriptures, due to this, due to science and advanced technologies, space and other things, people are less likely to believe in a Higher Being. I repeat, it is in the Supreme Being, and not in God by denomination – it does not matter if someone believes in religious creatures, mythologies, or admits the omnipotence of the Universe, which monitors every living being, Cosmos, karma or something similar-all this is not atheism. An atheist will be someone who relies solely on their own strength, not on luck, and so on; for him there should be no fate and prejudices, but only a series of random coincidences. And he must think that after death there is only emptiness. This is to distinguish who is a pseudo-atheist, who is true, and who is not at all. I will add that there are also agnostics-doubting people who cannot answer for themselves whether God exists or not. Agnostics also cannot be considered pseudo-atheists.

    Basically, pseudo-atheists are those who say they don't believe in the existence of a Higher Intelligence, but either actually believe it or change their mind at some point. In both cases, this may be because a person may be aware of his helplessness in the harsh world of chance and coincidence, will feel that in certain life situations he can not influence the course of events in any way. (Spoilers for Anna Karenina!!!) So it was, for example, with Levin in the work Anna Karenina. As far as I can remember, I may be wrong, the whole book he beat his chest that he did not believe in God, but when his wife gave birth, he wanted to ease her suffering and began to ask. He didn't know who he was asking, but he was asking someone out loud, begging them to make it easier for his wife to give birth. After that, he agonized for a long time, wondering who he was asking if he didn't believe it. Did you really believe me? _the end of spoilers. This is probably the case for many other people: it's all about doubts that arise during events that we can't control, but we always want to tip the scales of chance in our favor. And since no one knows how and what is true, so they can change their opinion in different situations (or, on the contrary, I will add, they can only confirm their opinion, but it may or may not change anyway).

Leave a Reply