Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Well, guys... I honestly have nothing to say. The guy was mocking the girl!!!! What does that imply? He really wanted to hear sensible things from her, which he never heard. For example: how do you imagine the God you believe in? Nonsense? Perhaps, from the point of view of a believer, because a believer cannot imagine anything, unfortunately, but is instead obsessed with their faith and repeats like a mantra - this is right, this is divine, and this is the filth of the world we live in. That's essentially all the "logic" there is. So, Anna is, in a way, a composite image (personally, I've seen enough of such characters). Neither science, Berserk, nor logic will prove your faith to anyone; that's what faith is for. Silvanis, but in what specific way is logic lacking in atheists? For them, there are purely earthly values, including love for the homeland that raised them and in which they live, and for which they are ready to make sacrifices, which is much higher in spirit than Christian sacrifice, because Christians believe that they will go to heaven, i.e., they will receive a specific reward for their sacrifice. There seems to be too much demagoguery in your opinion.
But how can atheists have love? After all, they don't have God, and therefore - they don't have love. Then renounce love, compassion, mercy, and justice. That would be more honest:rolleyes:
Silvanis, what exactly is illogical about atheists? They have purely earthly values, including love for their homeland, which raised them and in which they live, and for which they are ready to make sacrifices, which is much higher in spirit than Christian sacrifice, because Christians believe that they will go to heaven, i.e., they will receive a specific reward for their sacrifice. There seems to be too much sophistry in your argument, in my opinion.
This is a valid point. Indeed, in many cases, religious aspiration is simply explained by the fear of death (take Tolstoy as an example).
Values, in general, are beyond logic. It is simply pointless to discuss them from a logical point of view. Is gratitude really a good thing? Try to give a logical explanation for that! No, you are right, the example with values is not suitable.
Let me try to explain the reason for my religiosity. It all started when I was about 10 years old (around the time I converted to Christianity - truly converted: although I was baptized shortly after birth, I was not a believer, and in 8th-9th grade I became an atheist) - my prayers have a strange property: they usually come true. Of course, I don't ask for anything completely impossible:) After that, it would be quite foolish to deny the existence of God, wouldn't it? It's like denying an objective fact. And further - more: I still believe in the justice, goodness, and rationality of the world, and these concepts, for their existence in the necessary order, require God - or simply some higher power. The reason for my belief in these properties of the world... I simply see them everywhere and every day. With them, everything falls into place and gains meaning; an atheistic existence is simply meaningless. I should also add that I believe in reincarnation... That's what kind of heretic I am :) Without reincarnation, justice also doesn't work:(
I have now reviewed the post and see that I said many things not quite accurately, which may give the impression that I only believe to avoid an existential vacuum; this is not the case. I believe in goodness, justice, and God just as much as I believe in my own existence; and this belief is no less rational than, for example, the belief in the reality of the computer in front of me. I agree, Ganymed, neither our own existence nor the objectivity of the perceived world can be proven...
Added 1 minute ago 2Novizard - all these feelings are very easily explained from a scientific point of view (i.e., in a way that is acceptable to atheists) - they developed in the human species in the process of the struggle for survival as extremely useful for the survival of the species. There are also quite crazy atheistic explanations - for, as I call them, atheistic pagans - for example, these feelings were instilled in us by the aliens who created us or our ancestors, the Atlanteans, and all sorts of other nonsense in that vein...
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"... - Чжуан-цзы Сильванис
Аделаида
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Associating a deity as the sole source of love is, at the very least, short-sighted. Love exists even without God; love for oneself, for one's children, for one's parents, and even love for money ultimately doesn't depend on whether the loving person is religious or not.
I wouldn't classify myself as either a believer or an atheist because, to put it simply, I believe not in a deity as such, but in human potential. Because all progress, everything that is done directly or indirectly, is done by people, not by someone else. I don't believe that everything is predetermined, in fate; I simply believe in the confluence of circumstances, and all so-called miracles are nothing more than coincidences, which, as a rule, confirm the theory of probability. The same goes for luck; it's not the goddess Fortuna who kissed you, but you simply got lucky, you simply "got lucky," this time it was you, next time it will be someone else. A person creates their own life, charts their own course, and to say that I am not destined to become a great/intelligent/famous/successful person is simply an example of shirking responsibility for one's own life, although I don't deny that it's probably easier to live that way.
And as a conclusion: I recently saw in the news that one Pope is going to be canonized as a saint for healing a countess from some disease. Does anyone actually believe that? I don't. I just laughed at the fact that the whole world has gone mad. Or a more prosaic example: now, in many cities, they are building many churches (and I will say in advance that this is a good thing), and the same is happening in our city, but one case is just outrageous: either they canonized someone as a saint, or they gave a rank to a person (most likely), because he financed the replacement of the fence around the church.
Associating a deity as the sole source of love is, to say the least, short-sighted. Love exists even without God – love for oneself, for one's children, for parents, and even love for money ultimately doesn't depend on whether the loving person is religious or not. I wouldn't yet classify myself as either a believer or an atheist because, to put it simply, I believe not in a deity as such, but in human potential, because all progress, everything that is done directly or indirectly, is done by people, not by someone else. I don't believe that everything is predetermined, in fate – I simply believe in the confluence of circumstances, and all so-called miracles are nothing more than coincidences, which, as a rule, confirm the theory of probability. The same applies to luck; it's not the goddess Fortuna who kissed you, but you simply got lucky, you simply "got lucky." This time it was you, next time it will be someone else. A person creates their own life, charts their own course, and saying that I am not destined to become a great/smart/famous/successful person is simply an example of shirking responsibility for one's own life, although I don't deny that it's probably easier to live that way. And in conclusion: I recently saw in the news that one Pope is going to be canonized for healing a countess from some disease. Does anyone actually believe this? I don't. I just laughed at the fact that the whole world has gone mad. Or a more prosaic example: now, in many cities, they are building many churches (I will say in advance that this is a good thing), and in our city, the same thing is happening, but one case is simply outrageous – they either canonized someone or gave a rank to a person (most likely) for the fact that he financed the replacement of the fence around the church.
But there is, in my opinion, no love for money as such. There is greed and mania (and this applies not only to paper with images of cities or presidents). Man himself invented this thing – money – and elevated it to the status of God. This, in your opinion, is not love, but self-deception, invented by man. Yes, of course, God, and any kind of love, are not needed in this case if there are false gods, such as the "god of money," which does us great "good." By the way, do you know why a person is higher than other organisms on planet Earth? Because he can not only be born, fight for survival, reproduce, and die, but also because he can, unlike everyone else, believe, learn about the world as a whole, reason, and develop (and each one individually). IMHO. And if everyone lived without God, without love, then everyone would be just like animals or even plants, born, reproduce, and die according to a predetermined scenario, bringing neither benefit nor harm, nor progress as such. ;) As for fate, it changes in everyone's life more than 40 million times, even every moment, depending on the decision you make. But still, the paths of its development are predetermined; we think that we are the masters of our own destiny. :) IMHO.
Аделаида
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Lelya, I fundamentally disagree. First of all, you nitpicked the part about money; I think it's clear to everyone that I didn't mean numismatists, but people who know how and love to earn money and spend it—essentially, those who live a high-quality life. Secondly, concepts such as honor, responsibility, nobility, and duty appeared long before the emergence of world religions. And man would have become human regardless (I won't explain this; Darwin already did that long ago), and man invented the first tool without Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. On the contrary, there are many examples in history where religion hindered progress; this was especially evident in the Middle Ages—recall, for example, the astronomer Giordano Bruno, who, by the way, believed in God and was essentially a theologian. At our university, we had an entire course called "Science and Religion"; possible flights into space were very zealously condemned by all religions because man might see God, but having actually flown there, no one saw Him.
Lelya, I completely disagree. Firstly, you criticized the money, but I think everyone understands that I didn't mean numismatists, but people who know how to earn and love to spend money, in general, to live well. Secondly, concepts such as honor, responsibility, nobility, and duty appeared long before the emergence of world religions. And a person would still become a person (I won't explain, Darwin has long since done this), and the first tool was invented by a person without Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. But there are many examples in history where religion hindered progress, especially in the Middle Ages. For example, the astronomer Giordano Bruno, who, by the way, believed in God and was, in essence, a theologian. At our university, there was an entire course called "Science and Religion," and possible spaceflights were strongly condemned by all religions because a person could see God, but, in fact, no one saw him after flying there.
"Religion is the enemy of science. Representatives of religion, especially the Catholic Church, have always persecuted science - they burned Giordano Bruno, persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for defending the scientific truth of the Earth revolving around the Sun."
The fact that religion is not an enemy of science is already evident from the fact that the vast majority of scientists are believers. Let us recall that Catholic priests and monks make up almost a tenth of the most outstanding astronomers. Among them is the Catholic monk-Jesuit Father Secchi, the founder of an important branch of astronomy - astrophysics, which deals with determining the composition of stars.
The same can be observed in other fields of science. Such a modern science as genetics is based on a Catholic priest, a monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Father Mendel. Anyone seriously involved in zoology knows the name of Wasmann, an expert on the world of ants and termites - he was also a Catholic priest-Jesuit. Modern philologists are well aware of the name of the French Catholic priest, Father Rousselot, known for his work in the field of phonetics. The multi-volume works of the most learned Swiss missionary, Father Wilhelm Schmidt, a monk of the Steyler Order, made a valuable contribution to the study of the peoples of Africa and overturned many incorrect concepts in the field of ethnology.
No one denies that in the Middle Ages, monasteries were centers of scientific activity; atheists even accuse the Church of allegedly monopolizing science and thereby delaying its development. In reality, it turned out that precisely where science was concentrated in monasteries, it outpaced other countries and brilliantly prepared for further scientific achievements that followed this period.
The accusations that representatives of the Church fought against the views of certain thinkers are also unfair. Giordano Bruno was condemned not for adhering to the heliocentric system and rejecting the doctrine of the Earth being at the center of the world. He was condemned for violating the foundations of Christian doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ, the reality of the miracles He performed, and so on. Such facts do not relate to the essence of religion. History shows that even godless governments severely deal with their opponents. These facts are generally not related to the persecution of scientific views.
Regarding Copernicus, it is known that he did not suffer any repression for his teachings. He was a Catholic priest (a member of the cathedral chapter) and was respected by the higher clergy. This alone refutes the talk that his theory was hostile to Christian doctrine. There was nothing in Copernicus's book that contradicted Christian doctrine. Opponents of Copernicus believed that his views did not coincide with the then interpretation of the Holy Scriptures because, with the medieval state of science, the Bible was understood quite primitively. In reality, the Bible does not aim to establish any astronomical system but speaks of the universe in images and concepts contemporary to humanity.
The rejection of the heliocentric system by Catholic scientists in the 16th-17th centuries was, of course, their mistake; but the mistake of scientists is by no means proof of the hostility of religion or the Church to science and scientific progress. The opponents of Copernicus fought against it because they considered the old system scientifically proven, and Copernicus's views were an unfounded hypothesis. From their point of view, they were defending science, not hindering it. When Copernicus's theory was scientifically proven, no representative of the Church objected to it anymore.
In general, the assimilation of new theories rarely goes smoothly: most scientists find it difficult to abandon familiar ideas, and they often diligently defend old views until their inconsistency is definitively proven. Let us recall the almost half-century-long disputes of physicists about the heating of substances: the old material theory taught that the heating of substances occurs due to the presence of a special lightweight substance - phlogiston; the new theory claimed that such a substance does not exist. The dispute ended only after the complete inconsistency of the old theory was proven by the experiment of melting two pieces of ice by rubbing them against each other, without touching any objects "rich in phlogiston."
The famous naturalist Liebig was reluctant to believe in Pasteur's discoveries that microbes are the cause of human diseases. He even compared Pasteur's theories to the absurd assertion that the water in the river moves as a result of the rotation of mill wheels. And yet, Pasteur's discoveries made it possible to put medicine on a new basis and save the lives of many people. From the point of view of atheists, it turns out that Liebig should also be included among the enemies of science, hindering its development.
The persecution of Galileo is indeed a historical fact. But the enemies of the Church, telling about it, distort the facts. In reality, Galileo was only asked not to promote his views. And this measure was taken partly because of Galileo's restless character, who demanded that the church authorities condemn his opponents. There are absolutely no indications that Galileo was subjected to torture; the question may only be whether he was threatened with it. And the phrase attributed to him: "And yet it moves!" is a pure fiction.
In general, in our time, it is as unreasonable and unfair to reproach the Church for what happened more than three hundred years ago as if we were to accuse the modern government of the United States for the cruel treatment of blacks during slavery or the modern government of England for the cruel anti-Catholic laws of the past.
Moreover, even under atheistic governments, the most famous scientists (for example, Academician N. I. Vavilov) were condemned and repressed, despite their scientific merits, for the fact that their research contradicted the doctrines of the party. Knowing this, other scientists closed themselves off, withdrawing from scientific activity. From all that has been said, it is clear that the dominant atheism hinders science to a much greater extent than the dominant religion ever limited it. Well, that's it.
And regarding love - you can call a pot a frying pan as much as you like, but it won't become smaller. If God gave love only to those who believe in him... I think that would be unfair, don't you agree? A rocket will not care whether you are heavy or not, on the moon, no one will weigh anything (from the cartoon "Neзнайка on the Moon")
Бог есть любовь
Берсерк
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Wiz, 100+ to you, and special respect. Adelaide, Darwin rejected his theory. Not enough... The Theory of Evolution is the least proven and most contradictory theory, with hundreds of counter-arguments. Is that not enough?
1) You believe that something can exist eternally. So, hold on. The universe exists eternally. If there was a possibility for life to appear, it would have appeared exactly an ETERNITY ago. Agree, because give me just a chance in percentages, and I will provide you with time in portions of 100 quadrillion years :)
2) You believe that living matter can appear from stone and water (a simple molecule, atoms + electrons, mechanical).
3) You believe that matter can mutate, transform, and become more and more perfect.
4) You believe that we originated from those first tadpoles.
So, you believe in fairy tales and deny the simple logical fact about the possibility of the existence of a Creator? Your fairy tales are much less plausible than our faith.
And in general, close this damn topic! Let's talk to atheists AFTER death, what's the point of arguing now? They will have the opportunity to consult personally with Darwin about why they ended up in such a deplorable state.
And for now, the topic only causes quarrels; the Herald shouldn't have created it. Moderators, close it while we're still alive :) Otherwise, we'll call the Muslims, and they will quote the Quran to you and confirm it with a pistol. :)
Silvanis
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Novizard – a brilliant post! I fully support it.
Adelainda – I don't believe that morality could have arisen without religion – even if it's very primitive – like totemism or animism. Even such a staunch atheist as Freud acknowledged the enormous role of religion in shaping morality (not only at the individual level, but also at the historical level).
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"... - Чжуан-цзы Сильванис
Ganymed
19 years ago
Auto-translated
The statement that morality wouldn't exist without religion may be true, at least because religion has existed for almost as long as humanity itself. But there's another example – the Soviet atheist state. There, morality was maintained by the "party line," and even something like a high-ranking official's infidelity could cost him his career. In other words, morality can be regulated by law, not religious law, but state law.
Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR] ----------------------------- "So much has gone and little is new"
Adelaide, Darwin abandoned his theory. Is that not enough? The Theory of Evolution is the least proven and most contradictory theory, with hundreds of counter-arguments. Is that not enough?
Let's talk to atheists AFTER death; what's the point of arguing now? They will have the opportunity to consult with Darwin personally about why they ended up in such a deplorable state.
Could you provide a link to a scientific work by a more competent and authoritative author that indicates Darwin's rejection of his theory of natural selection? Otherwise, I can say that this theory is taught in schools, not the idea that you all descended from Adam and Eve. Are you going to attack the modern education system as well?
Ha-ha, "ended up in a deplorable state." I believe in myself, in my abilities, and in my potential, and I am not shifting responsibility for my life onto any deity, so I am in a great state.
Viz: where did I write that religious states are more humane...? Especially considering the Crusades and modern terrorism, which are also committed in the name of a deity and some great divine goal.
lopetos
19 years ago
Auto-translated
I've only been to church once in my life, and that was on a class trip when I was in school; I wouldn't have gone otherwise – I don't believe in God.
I will say right away that I believe in God.
Berserk;83342
Wiz, 100+ and my respect to you. Adelaide, Darwin rejected his theory. Not enough... The Theory of Evolution is the least proven and most contradictory theory, with hundreds of counter-arguments. Is that enough?
The theory of Christianity also has many contradictions and conflicts. And also, in my opinion, very many implausible facts. Especially, for example, I am annoyed by heaven and hell... for 60-80 years you do something, and then, depending on this, you end up somewhere for eternity... either you burn for eternity or you enjoy it...
1) You believe that something can exist forever. Okay, now stop. The universe exists forever. If there was a possibility of life appearing, it would have appeared exactly FOREVER ago. Agree, yes? Just give a chance in percentages, and I will provide you with time in portions of 100 quadrillion years :)
Yes, I believe. Life could very well have appeared a long time ago (not necessarily on our planet). So what?
2) You believe that living matter can appear from stone and water (a simple molecule, atoms + electrons, mechanical).
Yes, I believe. There is evidence, for example, from scientists. I even believe that each of us (people) is capable of creating this ourselves through the power of our soul's will... but this is not relevant to the topic.
3) You believe that matter can mutate, transform, and become more perfect.
Yes, I believe. Why not?
4) You believe that we came from these first tadpoles.
Specifically, our bodies? Yes, I believe.
So you believe in fairy tales, and deny a simple logical fact about the possibility of the existence of a Creator? Your fairy tales are no more or less proven than the existence of a Creator.
These are not fairy tales. And they are no more or less proven than the existence of a Creator. I also believe in this, by the way (in the existence of a Creator). Perhaps it is someone from us arguing in this topic ;)
In general, close this damn topic! Let's talk to atheists AFTER death, what's the point of arguing now? They will have the opportunity to consult personally with Darwin about why they ended up in such a deplorable state.
I don't know ;) Why did you write this then?
And for now, the topic only causes quarrels, the Prdevestnik shouldn't have created it. Moderators, close it while... we're still alive :) Otherwise, we'll call the Muslims, they'll quote the Quran to you, and also confirm it with a gun. :)
I may be wrong, but it seems that God, the Bible, Jesus... they all call for tolerance towards one's neighbor... Your statements don't look like that. Know yourself.
Enough with the insults towards Muslims! First, read the Quran and point out the specific passage that says one should be intolerant towards everyone and kill them all! There are far more such phrases in the Old Testament.
It's foolish to claim that a certain book says this or that if you haven't read the book. It's better to study the history of religion through texts, not through the myths circulating among semi-intellectuals.
The theory of Christianity also has many contradictions and conflicts. And also, in my opinion, very many implausible facts. For example, heaven and hell really get to me... you do something for 60-80 years, and then, depending on that, you end up somewhere for eternity... either you burn for eternity or you enjoy it...
This has always bothered me too, as it doesn't align with the idea of boundless divine mercy. That's why I believe in reincarnation, as a result of which a person - faster or slower, depending on their actions - moves towards the ultimate goal - a transition to a qualitatively higher level of existence (well, heaven, or becomes an angel or something like that) Supreme;83429
Yes, I believe. Life may well have appeared a long time ago (not specifically on our planet). So what?
Official science says that the universe appeared a finite, specific time ago. And it will either end its existence by collapsing back, or it will continue to exist, expanding infinitely. Supreme;83429
Yes, I believe. There is evidence, for example, from scientists. I even believe that each of us (people) is capable of creating it ourselves through the power of our soul... but this does not apply to the topic.
The evidence of scientists (Oparin's experiments), unfortunately, turned out to be very unsuccessful... What is said about them in our textbooks is another case of Soviet propaganda. But I believe that life originated in this way. And at the same time - that it was created by God. In general, I believe that He constantly intervenes in our lives, even in the smallest details; we just don't notice it. We somehow think that if He doesn't shout to us that He has appeared, then He is not intervening; that if a sinner is caught and punished by the authorities, and not by an angel with a fiery sword, then God has nothing to do with it. A poor point of view, I must say. If God acts like that, then I don't believe in Him. Supreme;83429
These are not fairy tales. And they are no more or less proven than the existence of the Creator.
Moreover, unlike the existence of the Creator, they have at least some evidence.
2AlexeyPank - Berserk did not mean all Muslims or Islam, but very specific Islamic terrorists. The rest of the Muslims can disown them as much as they want, but, unlike the Inquisition and the Crusaders, they are a real fact of our time. If you don't believe that they exist, try to speak on television with a speech offensive to Islam. It will be a miracle if you live for at least another year. If you say a similar speech about any other religion (even Christianity, which is now so fashionable to condemn), then nothing like this will happen to you.
2Ganymede - I'm sure you've also noticed that the values of Marxism (and, following it, the values of the Soviet Union) are very, very clearly derived from Christian ones :) Even Nietzsche, unintentionally, largely drew on the Christian system of values :)
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"... - Чжуан-цзы Сильванис
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Is extremism only Islamic? What about the IRA – they are Irish Catholic extremists. And they sincerely believe in God and sincerely hate Protestants. I don't want to condemn any particular religion; I believe they all deserve respect. But I can't stand it when they are imposed on others. Nothing is worse than pushy preachers.
