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?
I don't know what must happen to an atheist to become a believer; I assume it's an encounter with the inexplicable (like Saul on his way to Damascus). The Church sometimes recalls and reminds that faith is a gift from God (therefore, for some reason, not everyone gets it).
And a believer, in order to become an atheist, sometimes it is enough to spend several years among religious people)) if the first shock (“oh, they're not angels, they're just ordinary people! and bishops, priests, nuns are not saints, and not always good and good…”) will not be the last, then immersion in the clerical environment can alienate from the Church – everything is like everywhere else: intrigues, hypocrisy, corruption, crimes… (But do not assume that all churchmen are fanatics and idlers, there are good ones and they suffer very much if they are in a minority or subordination.)
I think that a person needs to go through the people's court and depending on his reasoning, he will be nailed either to the church or to atheism. Through the People's Court, you can occupy a certain niche in society,for example, become an atheist,
It seems to me that atheists should be divided into two types: The first type of people is the one who does not believe in God for any reason, or simply does not pay due attention to it. Such people are quite difficult to convince, but, as a rule, they are fickle and can become believers themselves. The second type of person is the one who justifiably does not believe in God. Perhaps the main reason for disbelief in the existence of God is that the root cause of the appearance of God himself has not been established. As you know, people tend to think that every thing has its own cause and, accordingly, God must also have his own cause, which is not really explained anywhere. If there is an explanation for this, then there is a chance that something will change
Very good question!
Change your thinking.
Of course, there are many reasons to believe and disbelieve. Oh, maybe it's true that someone doesn't know that the Earth is round, about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, and other school smarts.
I mean something else. I will try to give a distant analogy.
What should happen to make a person stop loving a book with its world and characters? Not to consider the world of this book as good (it can be terrible and beautiful at the same time), but to stop loving it.
To do this, you will need to rewind the film and change, first, what is inherited from parents that affects (but does not determine) the character of the child, and secondly, change the entire lifestyle, the entire environment that has influenced what a person likes and what does not.
What should happen to stop the book from being disgusting, so that a person is disgusted just to read it? It is the same thing, it is necessary to change not even the thinking, but a deeper one-the character of a person.
And why? There is no particular ontological difference between them. In the belief system, we encounter religions. Science is the same religion with its dogmas of faith (matter, time, space), its saints (Newton, Einstein), its rituals and liturgies (conferences, meetings, discussions), its spiritual educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities), its clergy and their ranks (masters, candidates of sciences, doctors of philosophy), its authorities (laws, principles, proofs)… It has its own institutions of inquisition and the fight against” heresies”, just like in other religions.
Even if a Christian starts thinking like a Muslim or a Buddhist, and “vice versa, it will be like a particular individual engine of religious thinking” will simply start running on a different fuel – instead of religious gasoline, it will use religious gas or religious kerosene.�The result will be the same:thoughts of a believer who addresses the object of his faith.
The believer's thinking is a figure in the general background of thinking. The point is not to recognize the shapes (they are already quite well studied), but to grasp the entire background… That's the problem…
Update:
Good. You just need to change the priorities in the objects of worship: the atheist will need to cultivate the” whodeness “of being, and the believer will need to increase the emphasis on the” whodeness ” of reality.
Let me explain: theistic religions (personalistic religions) answer the question “Who is the Truth”, while depersonalistic religions (Buddhism, Taoism, atheism) prefer to answer the question “What is the Truth”. Hence the decision: to change the poles of accentuation of thinking.
As for believers, I can say that they often renounce their faith when God “fails” them. By asking for something vital to them and not finding an answer, some believers become disillusioned and start looking at the world differently.