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?
Speaking from the point of view of formal logic, of course, it is much more difficult to prove that something does not exist than to prove its existence. In order to prove that there are black swans, it is enough to show one black swan, but how to prove that, for example, aliens do not exist? Just because I haven't met any of them, it doesn't follow that they aren't there, but that they might be hiding… There is such a formula: the absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Therefore, of course, strictly speaking, the statement that “the absence of God is proven” is utter nonsense.
On the other hand, there is still a huge difference between faith and unbelief, which believers often do not notice when they call atheism – a kind of faith, a belief in non-existence. It has always seemed to me that there are no believers in the non-existence of God. Do you believe in the non-existence of Thor or Zeus? You get up every day thinking: “Thor doesn't exist!”, ” Zeus doesn't exist!”It is clear that this is absurd, unbelief simply cannot occupy the same significant position in a person's worldview as faith does in some cases. Therefore, it is more correct to refer to atheists as those who do not consider it necessary to recognize the existence of God on the basis of existing arguments. And here we can already talk about knowledge: after all, such an atheist must have arguments! Again, these are not arguments that allow us to prove the absence of God with mathematical accuracy, but they are arguments that still incline a person to take a certain ideological position. Many of these arguments are negative-that is, they are objections to the position of believers. To do this, an atheist should at least know religious arguments – at least read a chapter from a textbook on the history of medieval philosophy about the five proofs of Thomas Aquinas, for example. In this sense, we can already say that atheism is based on knowledge – the knowledge of arguments in favor of faith and the presence of negative arguments.
First of all, it is worth remembering that not all believers and not all non-believers are exactly the same. For example, a child usually deduces that everyone in the building is bad after one person leaves a building, and if they don't like them in some way, they usually conclude that everyone in the building is bad. But even most adults, after talking with a carrier of some views, which (the carrier) they did not like, conclude that such views are held only by all sorts of assholes. This is one plane of the problem.
The second level is the different amount of knowledge about religion among believers and atheists. There is such a long-standing dream of some atheist movements – to prove that it is not necessary to understand religion in order to properly criticize it. It is enough to explain the essence of religion through some biological theory, for example, then you can consider religion a disease and observe it only from the outside, and not study it from the inside. None of these attempts has so far been able to withstand the full pressure of scientific criticism. And not all atheists adhere to this approach. This is a big topic of its own, and I have only touched on it here to highlight the difference between different atheistic views and approaches. Marxists, for example, are also atheists, but they believe that religion should be studied from the inside, analyzed sacred texts, and so on.
Most of those who consider themselves atheists do not bother to study in depth all these varieties and the difference between them. It's just that they are not close to religion, all their knowledge about religion is limited to the experience of communicating with a small number of believers (most often, they are not very intelligent believers) and this experience is negative. They are the ones who say that atheism, unlike religion, is based on knowledge. This statement is based on the popular misconception that religion is an explanation of the structure of the world (in the Bible, for example, the structure of the world is one and a half pages out of one and a half thousand). And so, according to this misconception, religion is based on an incorrect picture of the world (although religion is not based on a picture of the world at all), and atheism is based on a scientific picture of the world. Roughly speaking, the main thing is to know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, hence the meaning of life and everything else. Of course, the meaning of life cannot be deduced from the scientific picture of the world, but it can be deduced from religion, which is why this approach is false.
Such unenlightened atheism operates with arguments drawn from popular sources, but very poor quality. For example, the so-called Occam's razor curve – ” do not produce entities unnecessarily.” Why the curve – because a very crooked translation and a hint that the world is subject to the principle of necessity (this is easy to refute – for example, speech organs are far from necessary for humans from a biological point of view, and so without them there would be no civilization, perhaps). The correct translation is ” do not multiply (multiplicanda) entities in excess of what is needed”, where multiplying means duplicating existing ones. There are a number of other arguments, but the question is not about them. I mention them to describe the source from which the statement given in the question comes.
Atheism is a belief that denies religions and their declared supernatural powers. And although, according to many believers, they are based on knowledge of natural sciences-physics, chemistry, biology (the so-called “scientific atheism”, based on scientific methods), this is not necessary. A large number of people live without asking questions about the presence or absence of gods or are sure of their absence simply based on ordinary common sense or because of a skeptical mindset (the so-called “practical atheism”). Such people have no religious motivation (that is, they make their decisions without looking at the “supervisor from above”) and they explain natural phenomena, as well as their successes and failures, without attracting otherworldly forces.
Believers, on the other hand, intentionally or unconsciously mix atheism and anti-clericalism-a movement against religious organizations and their employees (clergy). Anti-clericalism denies not the existence of gods and other supernatural forces, but the church's claim to its exclusive role in public life. First of all, anti-clericalism is a reaction to the aggressive and unceremonious intrusion of religions (primarily the Russian Orthodox Church) into the lives of atheists and state structures (which, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, should be free of religions).
All of the above explains the appearance and existence of Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the main purpose of which is to protect religious organizations and their leaders from anti – clerics. And if paragraph 1 of this article toothlessly declares the protection of abstract “religious feelings of believers” (and by the way, as everyone points out, if the article was about freedom of conscience, it would also have to protect the feelings of non-believers), then subsequent paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 directly protect religious organizations from those who will express dissatisfaction with their activities.
The fact is that religion is based on faith. Faith doesn't need proof. Therefore, for a believer, the explanation of everything can be a religious text.
Atheism, as the opposite of faith, rejects such beliefs and relies on the natural world (nature) and its studied laws (physical, chemical, and others), which are proven knowledge.
Atheism is a scientific worldview. The knowledge on which it is based is knowledge about the world around us. It is not a question of denying God. This is secondary. The main thing is the search for truth. This is how science differs from religion. Science is trying to find the truth, but religion already knows it. Or rather, he thinks he knows.
“This knowledge” is about how we can live in peace and harmony with each other.
But this knowledge is only good if,
if they are the same and mandatory for all people living on Earth.
It is “the same and obligatory for all”, i.e. scientific knowledge of morality,
because, any disagreements on moral issues
they lead to disputes, quarrels and enmity between people.
So our education system MUST teach our children
scientific knowledge of morals and moral terminology,
I. e. definitions of moral concepts,
in strictly scientific, logically impeccable formulations.
Only in a society of morally educated citizens,
we will be able to solve controversial issues in a scientific way,
that is, without insults, threats, and without the use of fists and weapons.
Guys, let's live together!!! – that is, in a scientific, moral way.
They say this because those who say it do not understand the true reasons for the atheists ' beliefs. Atheism is based on faith. Based on the belief in infinite, immortal matter (compare with the belief in an infinite, immortal god). Based on the belief that consciousness is created by blind eternal matter. And in religion you can find both real knowledge and absolute truth. The scope of atheists ' experience, their knowledge, is based on the experience of interacting with physical objects. Hence the misconception of atheists. If you have a different experience , you will have a different knowledge.
Atheism is, in fact, the result of materialistic science. After all, representatives of natural-scientific knowledge are sure that it is the natural sciences that essentially study the world-both concretely and essentially, as <and> is in itself (i.e. objectively). And he, according to them, is both natural and material. Outside of it, nothing else exists or should exist. In short, this knowledge of theirs does not presuppose the existence of something more perfect, higher, etc.
Any life position is based on knowledge. Atheism is no exception. Another thing is that the life position is not the result of the selection of objective knowledge and the corresponding conclusion after that, it is the result of a person's subjective choice. The choice is based on the emotional, physical, and mental state of the person, their life experience, interests, and education. There is no such thing as exclusively atheistic knowledge. The whole point is in the subjective interpretation of this knowledge within the conditions described above.
Atheism, Darwinism are the same beliefs based on alleged knowledge. Neither anyone has received artificial life nor anyone has proved the origin of species, but nevertheless the adherents of these sects assert and enforce their teachings no matter what. They have their own Jesus/The Prophet Mahomed-Darwin. There is a postulate-life originated by itself, just as in other beliefs-life was created by God. Mathematical proofs/prayers for the development of life are derived. So I don't see any difference in terms of knowledge. This sect doesn't know anything. I can see the difference in goals. Atheism / Darwinism aims to prove that man is a soulless automaton, created at the whim of nature (accidentally) living simply to win a place in the sun by natural selection. According to the principle of who is stronger, quirkier, who knows how to adapt, he will survive. Man to man is nobody. To kill, to commit adultery, to betray is normal. Everything is allowed for survival. And when you die, you'll just die. You don't have a soul or a place in heaven or hell. YOU'RE AN ANIMAL. A SOULLESS ANIMAL.
All the world's religions are based on religious doctrines. In Christianity, this is the New Testament and the Creed. In Islam – the Koran, in Jews-the Torah, in Buddhists-the Tripitaka. And so on. In other words, there is NO ONE GOD in religious doctrines, and the question of whether you believe in god is meaningless. There can only be one answer: what god?
The atheist has nothing to refute yet. Before you do this, you need to know WHAT you are being asked to refute.
In fact, this means refuting the historicity of a particular DOCTRINE. This is where KNOWLEDGE comes to the fore. Was Christ as a God-Man? Could he have been born of a virgin, perished on the cross, and risen again? Could a pathetic bunch of illiterate apostles have written the gospels and other works of the New Testament in Greek? (Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic.) Could the illiterate fishermen of Lake Tiberias, without knowing the languages, have spread the “doctrine of Salvation” across the vast expanses of the Roman Empire, from Africa to Britain, from Spain to the Black Sea and beyond?
In order to understand how the Christian doctrine could have appeared and how it actually spread, it is necessary to study the Bible, the writings of early apologists for Christianity, and a lot of ancient literature. This is a purely scientific work.
My point: Christianity has an artificial origin. It was invented as a tool for managing the Roman Empire. And to hide the involvement of the emperors themselves in the creation of the doctrine and spread of Christianity, myths were invented about the endless persecution of Christians, from Nero to Julian the Apostate. After all, every emperor is the supreme pontiff (of pagan colleges of priests). Therefore, the emperor could not open his “face”until the beginning of the 4th century. Just like Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Yeltsin and many others. others, hiding their intentions, did not reveal their true goal for a long time, “fighting” for “socialism with a human face.”
Atheism is based on ignorance. More precisely, on the inability to prove. While there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, there will be those who believe in him and do not believe in him.�
The existence of God is a hypothesis. The same hypothesis as string theory, antimatter, multiple universes. You can only make arguments, but there is no confirmed data yet – this is a hypothesis. There are supporters of the hypothesis( believers) and opponents ( atheists), just like any other hypothesis.�
As soon as someone can prove the existence of God, immediately the number of atheists will decrease tenfold, they ( atheists) will be viewed as supporters of a flat Earth.
And while there is no evidence, everything is at the level of trust, faith.�
The atheist believes that there is no God, the believer believes that there is no God, but both believe and do not know. And someone is trying to find evidence – this is the third group.
Atheism is based on psychology. Get simple answers to complex questions. And the answers are really simple. There are atoms and molecules, and we don't see anything else, which means there is nothing. And life and consciousness are just a random combination of these atoms and molecules. This Philosophy of Emptiness gives a certain category of people a great relief of their existence. Moreover, this philosophy is thousands of years old, and it does not depend on any development of science. However, atheists themselves have a different opinion, and this is their right, freedom of conscience.
Atheism is the denial of theology based on the presence of some supernatural, unknowable, etc.entity that is supposedly able to create everything and fulfill the desires of its adherents. But if we look at the activities of these adherents, the same ROC, we will see that everything it owns was created by the labor of people. But in order to force people to work for a corporation, just theology is needed, or more simply, ideological and propaganda coercion based on faith in this power and fear of disobeying it. They are subordinate to the clear, work for the clear, and so on. Atheism denies this essence and fears, which brings liberation and sanity. This is also the humanity of atheistic morality: only a person with his own work is able to ensure his well-being and progress on the path of progress!
Atheism is based not on knowledge, but on the denial of the concept of God. This denial is reflected in philosophy by the expression: “This cannot be, because it can never be.”
In principle, it is impossible to prove the absence of God.
When answering this question, you must answer the question about the knowledge that you will use to answer it. Therefore, knowledge based on practical experience allows you to give the correct answer with a nominal volume on this topic. If the knowledge is insufficient, if it is mystified, and even more so deliberately perverted, then the answer will definitely be false.
Therefore, when talking about atheism and its opposite, theism, it is necessary to know: why is this theism in this form created? what does it teach you? and what was it created for? And here comes the famous Kozma Prutkov-Look at the root! Namely, the root – the material tasks of religion based on religious and mystical verbiage and allow you to understand and give the right answer about religion. Because from the Bible-you can not serve God and momona. And it was to the servants of Momon, the golden calf, that Jesus himself told them that the father of their faith and faith was the devil. Therefore, believers should start from this and look for the truth in it. And if, as I mentioned at the beginning, the basis of reline is a material reflection of reality, then for the education of the younger generation, for understanding the concepts of Good, Love, etc., and therefore the opposites – Evil, etc., fairy tales were used in the course of education, on the basis of endowing animals and even things with consciousness, etc., allowing them to clearly show the difference between Good and Evil, to understand good and bad, to distinguish beautiful from ugly, etc. And this is the spiritual education of the younger generation and strengthening in the belief that this is exactly how people belonging to the species Homo Sapiens should live and treat each other.
But if this leads to the formation and development of a socially equal and just society, then this goes against the religious and mystical dogmas designed to force people to work for the creators of these dogmas and ensure their material existence with their productive labor. And if this is not clear, then I will quote the speech of a certain messenger of God on earth from the Chabad sect. I'll give you a link and some short quotes. Please follow the link and read the speech of this Jewish fascist and super-fascist, as he positions himself, in full, otherwise the program has reduced everything too much.
And you need to start with freedom of conscience. If there is a conscience brought up to others and the surrounding world from childhood, then this is religion. For religion is a conscientious attitude to someone-living, or to something-inanimate nature. Therefore, for the conscientious, read-religious, all creatures of nature-living and inanimate, have the right to exist. And it is necessary to use what has been created intelligently, because no living organism is capable of living on the waste products of its practical life activity. This leads to the rational use of non-renewable natural resources, allowing people, on the one hand, to fully meet all their needs, producing everything necessary for this. On the other hand, do not disturb the natural environment, which only ensures its existence. It is clear that this requires: the development of science, technology and technology, the development of the person himself, etc. Therefore, such a religion leads to the belief that if we work and live properly and intelligently, we will live happily ever after. Therefore, such a religion in the event of global catastrophes, when the usual conditions of life and production are destroyed, the same global flood, then this leads to a struggle for survival and existence, which forces in new conditions – a return to the Stone Age? – take care of everything and treat everything super-rationally, because there is a complete shortage in everything. Here, on the basis of religion-a conscientious attitude, just different conditions arise for the emergence of causes for the deification of different plants, trees and animals that helped to survive and adapt to new environmental conditions. This suggests that such a religion is materialistic, and it is aimed at the survival and adaptation of people in these environmental conditions. At the same time, the very idea of something supernatural, paradoxically, does not contribute to survival in a purely material and human form. But it is very important to use the ideological justification of fear of nature in the name of creating dependence to force people to work for themselves, etc., which allows them to solve the problems of their own survival at the expense of the work of others. Therefore, from faith and religious attitude to the environment, as they say, smart people create theologies based on theism. And if on the basis of religion God is reason, because, as the Bible says, first there was the Word, read Knowledge, The Word was with God, read Reason, and the Word was God, read Reason. That is why we have the Sons and Young Men of God – the Mind, while theologians have the servants of God. And Jesus himself told the worshippers of that god that their father was the devil. Therefore, atheism is the denial of everything supernatural, used for the oppression and exploitation of man by man. And if the slaveholder, feudal lord, landowner, bourgeois, capitalist, bureaucrat, etc. oppresses and exploits on the basis of material dependence, then the clergy – spiritual dependence. And if under the tsar believers had to pay tithes, then the atheistic Soviet government exempted workers from this vile tax. And if atheists are fighting precisely for freedom of conscience – to themselves, to people, to society, to the results of the work of workers, etc. D., that is the way for the education and elevation of morals and morals, the theists are for freedom from morals, which clearly leads to the fall, and liberation from sin – supplication and material redemption, which is material enslavement, designed to increase the welfare of the church. Therefore, under Soviet rule, people were free and pure in soul, and under liberal freedom, they were mired in sin and poverty, both material and spiritual. That's the prose of life.
Atheism is a refusal to believe in any gods. The idea is that if something cannot be confirmed in principle, then it is not necessary to believe in it. That is, atheism is a moral position of a person who does not want to deceive himself or others. Knowledge here is the principle of Occam's razor, according to which it is not necessary to produce entities unnecessarily. It is also not superfluous to study what is known about evolution and cosmology.
religion is definitely not knowledge, it's about nothing at all (faith!). Religion is a way to shift responsibility to the heavenly”father” -the patron saint-all-rounder, not now, but someday.
Atheism subjects religion to critical analysis and presupposes its philosophical, scientific, and historical inadequacy from a materialistic point of view.But this is a one-sided approach.”Reliance” on science is untenable,because it studies only the processes,objects, and phenomena of the material world and does not “look for God there”.Science does not say or prove anything,but scientists who have different worldviews say and prove it.Therefore, in the question” is-is not ” 50-50 (Kant). If, based only on scientific knowledge, they proved either “yes”or”no”, then someone would have already received the Nobel Prize for this.By the way,ethnographers to this day have not found a single genus-tribe that would not believe in the supernatural.Materialists ' knowledge is aimed at discrediting the religious worldview,as well as historical criticism that explains the origin and development of religions as a natural social process,but does not take into account that “man does not live by bread alone.”
It is not based on knowledge. Just theories and nothing more. They accuse believers of following someone they don't see, but they also trust people who have made mistakes many times.
The synthetic theory of evolution has filled many fragile minds with nonsense and strengthened them in their stupidity.
For those who are in the subject, I say again. There is no proof of the absence of God and there will not be.
Atheism is a religion, it is the belief that the God that religion speaks about does not exist. The foundation of this religion is the contradiction of traditional religion with the knowledge that a person receives in life.
Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Many knowledgeable people are believers. I believe that atheism is based on common sense. It is impossible to prove the existence and non-existence of God (well, that's how it was invented). Naturally, Occam's razor cuts off God as a completely unnecessary entity of our world. Well, from an ethical point of view, God is rather a very unpleasant person. The evil and vengeful god of the old testament may be worse than the maliciously loving god of the new Testament, but not by much. So an atheist thinks: why do I need such a god?
Atheism is knowledge about the origin of life. On the material nature of our existence. About evolution. And also atheism that religion is the sublimation of human fears of the unknown. It is used exclusively in applied terms for spiritual humiliation as a means to humble a person with unfreedom in inequality.
The evidence-based knowledge base is based on the fact that “the formation and emergence of life on earth lasted millions of years, and during this time positive mutations and mutation-like changes were combined in one organism,” but no one can prove how this happened.
how the organism understood what it needed, if it was still in the form of inanimate matter, and how the inanimate came to life. Any even the simplest organism is very complex, starting with the cells and molecules of which it consists.
Science, unlike religion, requires facts. And even the theories of physicists are not fictions, but possibilities confirmed by mathematics. Which are later confirmed in practice. An example is the Higgs Boson. About religion, we can say that it is based on people's belief that after death they will live. It's easier for them.
Yes, in general, about everything. Do you know the difference between an atheist and a believer? A believer has all the answers, and the Bible is enough for him. He will answer any question either with a quote from it, or with something like “God wills everything”, but he will never admit his ignorance. An atheist always admits that he does not know everything, that science does not know everything yet, but as it develops, he will try to find answers to all the tasks and questions set. That is why religion and science are antipodes. The first is a dead end, and the other is the development and expansion of knowledge.
Atheism (scientific) is not based on knowledge, but on sensory experience. These are different things. Knowledge is a fully adequate reflection of reality in the mind. It is still a big question whether such knowledge happens. Imagine that you've only met black cats all your life. Your experience is that all cats are black. Is this experience knowledge? No. When you finally meet the white cat, you will have to supplement the reality model, but this will also not be knowledge. And only when you see absolutely all the cats in the universe with all possible colors, only then will it be knowledge. Therefore, atheists only offer a convenient approximate model of the world, a convenient language for describing the world, based on many experiments conducted, but not absolute knowledge of reality.