Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- 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?
If we are talking about the Christian god, then everything is obvious. If a loving and merciful Lord really existed, there would be no famine and epidemics, wars and natural disasters in the world, there would be no children born with disabilities, and the elderly would not experience terrible suffering before passing away…
If we are talking about a certain higher being who only watches us dispassionately, but does not interfere in anything… It is impossible to logically prove or refute its existence, and the attitude to this idea is a matter of faith. But an idea that is not based on facts is always fruitless, does not explain anything and does not help anything. I don't feel the need for such faith.
Brodsky has a “concentrated” answer to your question:
There is a mystique. There is faith. There is a Lord.
There is a difference between them, and there is unity.
Some are harmed, others are saved by the flesh.
Disbelief is blindness, but more often – piggishness.
Brodsky answers that people do not believe because of two main reasons: because of complete internal depravity ( piggishness), for them the idea of God is like diamonds for a pig – it does not see sense in them. The second reason is blindness, that is, the inability to see. The reasons are different – no one showed a person, he never delved, there is no time, if he delved, it was a cursory glance, prejudice, it happens that a person saw a lot of destructive things related to faith ( nanopyl, the patriarch's watch, the execution of Giordano Bruno, the fanatical behavior of “believers” and much more) and for these signs he dismissed faith completely. There is such an anecdote on this topic:�
“Everyone says,' Caruso! Caruso! “And I listened – so nothing special”
“Did you hear Caruso?!”�
“Not at all. Rabinovich sang to me.”
The question is not quite correct, a person does not believe in God from birth, faith is a product of his attitude to reality or the desire to find something for himself. An atheist is someone who did not make a choice in favor of faith, but remained what he was from birth. A person does not believe in God simply because he is not interested in it. As for the antitheists (these are the guys who are foaming at the mouth to prove that there is no God), as for me, they just scratch their chsv, as if hinting that they are smarter than the rest, which says just the opposite.
I don't deny God, but I still have something to say.
I do not deny God, but your speculations about God. Both personally yours and “yours” in the sense of all believers.
I very seriously doubt both your (including and personally yours) competence in this matter.
And I'm convinced that you have no idea what you're talking about.
In my opinion, you are not even retelling other people's words, but a retelling of the retelling of the words of one deaf person who allegedly heard something somewhere.
I have no understanding or even guesses as to why you decided to believe this retelling of the retelling here. But I clearly see just the same huge tangle of contradictions, stupidities and absurdities in your attempts to follow the precepts of this retelling of retelling, and from this I conclude that your interpretation of God is no good.�
And to deny God is clearly not about me. He didn't do anything wrong to me, so if he exists somewhere, then I don't mind:)