Posts from God... Truth or fiction?

No, he didn't write that; he wrote that faith is the denial of disbelief. This is true, just as disbelief is the denial of faith. But that doesn't mean that disbelief in God is a refuge!

I absolutely agree with Kamikaze!

"Faith is the refuge of any person." Grandly said! I'm giving a virtual +:)
Atheism is also a belief, of course, as is any idea in general.

From this, Ganymed concludes that disbelief in God is a refuge, since atheism is also a belief.

Added 1 minute ago

faith is the denial of disbelief. This is true - just as disbelief is the denial of faith.

I have already answered Ganymed about this. So, I am answering you too. Read above.

Since questions such as "religions" and "the creation of the world" remain open to this day, it is not surprising that so many different opinions have been expressed in this thread. And that, in fact, is a good thing, but we haven't moved beyond "getting acquainted." Therefore, I suggest, for example, moving on to a more specific discussion.
1) I believe that everyone believes in something (in any case). But any belief has its pros and cons. One of the main advantages of faith is that it really helps to cope with most problems (at least morally). But there is also a downside – it tempts people to use the "advantage" every time, even when it is not necessary.
Conclusion: The main thing is not "what to believe in?" but "how to believe?"
2) I have also noticed for myself that the richer and more saturated a faith is with various traditions, rituals, etc., the poorer, materially, its adherents are, and vice versa.
3) There are also interesting questions: when? why? does a person begin to believe?

As for the topic "God... Truth or Fiction??" I cannot say anything meaningful, since my opinion on this matter is only meaningful to me!! The only thing I can advise is... Seek God!!!

This is where Ganymede's idea stems from: disbelief in God is a refuge, and since atheism is also a belief.

:smile52: "according to Ganymede," I'm lost...
Atheism is also a belief. And not because it's a denial of faith, but because it's a belief in human capabilities.

:smile52: "Ganymede-style," I'm floored...
Atheism is also a faith. And not because it is a denial of faith, but because it is a faith in human capabilities.

A debatable point. After all, there are cynics and egoists who perceive others merely as a means for their own advancement in one field or another (such people really do exist, but what can you do—wrong upbringing by parents, or life simply hardened them) and are atheists at the same time (I have yet to meet a single Christian, or even just a religious person, who is an egoist). That is, "faith in human capabilities" is not entirely correct in this case. Faith in one's own capabilities also doesn't fit, for the egoist survives at the expense of others and is aware of it. The conclusion? Atheism is not a faith, and cannot be a faith; it is merely a naive delusion of the youth of "that time," since atheism appeared precisely along with Lenin. Atheism at that time was the same as online and TV entertainment is today: it's new, it's fashionable, it brainwashes. Forgive me for drifting from religion to history, BUT:
For a reason I personally find incomprehensible, the Freemasons and the Germans wanted to destroy Russia. The former are still pursuing this to this day. However, both understood (the former still understand ;)), that defeating Russia with weapons, i.e., physically, is IMPOSSIBLE. The Russian people were, to use computer terminology, simply cheat-level strong. And what was and remains the Russian strength? Strength of spirit! And where do Russians get such an inexhaustible strength of spirit? From faith! It is not for nothing that Russia is called a blessed country, and not for nothing was the phrase "the devil borrowed Russia from God" said, referring to the revolution. The Freemasons and Germans knew that Russia could not be defeated, it could only be corrupted from within, but HOW? First, it had to be beheaded, the Romanovs removed, especially Alexander the Liberator; we've already missed the boat on the liberation of the serfs, he won't sign another decree! And so it happened. Alexander II became a victim of a terrorist attack. The Freemasons are incredibly clever—who would suspect them when radicals organized everything? However, Russia continued to prosper, and then this Nicholas II, damn him, popped up!
- Now what do we do? The bombs have run out, there's nothing left to blow up!
- Oh! I have an idea!
That's when they found Lenin. I don't know how much money they paid him, but history speaks for itself: he agreed.
- Well, colleagues, congratulations! All that's left is to properly blacken the tsar's name so that the people follow Lenin. We must make people hate Nicholas! Any suggestions?
- A mass shooting!
- I don't understand... Please explain your thinking in more detail, esteemed colleague...
When the plan for Bloody Sunday went off with a bang, the confused chairman was satisfied.
- Wonderful! Now everything will go like clockwork!
Everything went ALMOST like clockwork. Not the entire population followed Lenin, and it wasn't because of the Imperial Guard. Experienced and wise old men, peasants, wouldn't even listen to Lenin; the Cossacks just chuckled. The youth followed Lenin. Yes, yes, specifically the youth.
- Well, we have the youth, that's already good.
- And what do we do with the rest?
- What do we do with them? We don't need them. Scrapping the peasants, the Cossacks to the wall.
But the Cossack and the peasant don't give up so easily! There you have your civil war!
- So what? We won the war anyway!
Screw you!
- You go screw yourself!
Then came the sudden taboo on God.
- Aha, exactly! "Opium for the people"—my idea! *smirks proudly*
However, even in such a perfectly thought-out plan, there were some glitches. The Germans and Freemasons created a monster that subsequently brought one of its "creators" down to the lowest of the low.
- Oh, to hell with the Germans. Let them sit in their Germany and shake their balls, and we're across the ocean—they won't reach us!
Care to bet a hundred bucks that they will?
- As if! I'm not going to bet with some random...
And rightly so. :p

Everything after that is clear. Atheism, the decay of morals, and fairy tales about the beautiful life "overseas"—this is the weapon the Freemasons (now without Germany :smile34: ) use to fight us.

Viz, just don't make up a story. I'll tell you honestly—the Freemasons didn't start the revolution. You should look at the statistical data on life in the Russian Empire before saying that Nicholas was a good ruler.
I'll give you just one figure. In 1913, infant mortality in Russia was 239 people per 1000. In India, where infant mortality is considered one of the highest in the world (even now)—213. In France—130.
So, operate with facts.
Why was there a struggle against faith? Because any new religion always begins with the denial and persecution of previous ones (again, I refer you to history). A new religion emerged—communism—which left no room for others (as others had done).
And if we are talking about which religion is better—the one that led the country to collapse or the one that raised it from the bottom to second (and in some ways first) place in the world, then I am unequivocally for the latter.

Atheism is not necessarily a belief in human capabilities; one can be an atheist-determinist (in theory, this is the "hardcore" atheism of the 19th and 20th centuries), and by considering everything to be predetermined from the beginning, one automatically denies the existence of possibilities for anyone. One can be an atheist while still believing that the world is sufficiently chaotic and random – again, little depends on each individual here. Etymologically, atheism is simply the absence of faith in any god. There is no need to say that faith is a refuge for the weak, who cannot cope with their problems on their own and therefore invent a kind of helper-god, while atheism is the lot of the strong in spirit, who can do without "this hypothesis." 2Alexey-Punk – it is perfectly clear that Islamic extremism is being exploited for political purposes. But this does not negate either the fact of its existence or its significance. There are absolutely no signs of dementia in the Pope, and there is nothing shameful about being at an advanced age. It is impossible to make a clinical diagnosis without the appropriate education and without предварительно observation; and to call him names just because he belongs to a religion that you hate seems unworthy to me. If I use offensive words about Muhammad, I can state the reasons that prompted me to do so, and "he was a Muslim!" is not one of them. Regarding Tsarist Russia, I agree that it must have been a terrible place. Workers and peasants languished in poverty and died of hunger, while the upper classes wallowed in luxury – this is outrageous. If the Tsarist regime had been good, so many people (almost all urban dwellers) would not have been inspired by the idea of revolution. But at the same time, I am convinced that throughout the history of mankind, there has been no more vile and repulsive system than the Soviet one; in my opinion, even Nazi Germany was better. I will not explain why in this topic; it is better to create a special thread to discuss the Soviet Union. By the way, it is quite relevant

:Atheism is also a belief. And not because it's a denial of faith, but because it's a belief in human capabilities.

As far as I know, belief in a person and their capabilities is called "humanism," derived from homo - man. Of course, it implies the best qualities that a person possesses.

No, guys, at least read about the essence of atheism in Soviet Russia. Atheism is not just disbelief in God. That would be too simplistic. Soviet ideologists understood this well. There, atheism was the starting point for a NEW RELIGION. The religion of communism – that is, paradise on earth, not in heaven. If you tell a people with strong traditions of faith in God that there is no God, but offer nothing in return, they simply won't accept it. Every thesis is countered by an antithesis. Dialectics. Lenin understood this very well. Therefore, a new FAITH was offered to the people.
And then... what is atheism – in translation, godlessness. That is, a person BELIEVES that there is no God, just as another person BELIEVES that there is. And both are faith in principle, because no one can say for sure whether God exists or not (because no one has seen him). Therefore, just as faith in God is a DENIAL of disbelief in God, so is the opposite. These are self-evident phenomena that accompany any faith, and, in essence, one can say that people believe in "denial," dear Apple:)

That’s exactly what I’m saying: communism is a religion. And a good, positive one at that. It inspired people to strive for a bright future for ALL of humanity, not just believers. It had its own gods, saints, and cult. And I find this religion much more appealing.

That's exactly what I'm saying, communism is a religion. And a good, positive one at that. It made people strive for a bright future for ALL of humanity.

But what about the Soviet "inquisitors" who, for the good of all humanity (except for capitalist countries:rolleyes:), destroyed or sought to destroy everyone who disagreed with them?
- Sorry, what did you say? Does God exist? Interesting thought. Please, go down that hallway.:smile10:

P.S. And the Soviet Union was indeed a very positive state. Every day we learned from the newspapers that we were all living better and better!:rolleyes:

Wiz, give me facts, not emotions. Specifically, how many people were executed for their faith, and not for specific crimes. Otherwise, every criminal will say they suffered for their faith, which is more prestigious than suffering for theft.
After the communist religion was established, there was a softening of attitude towards other religions; churches were opened, and people were allowed to attend them. But this happened after the old religions ceased to pose a threat to the new one (which happened in all religions).
Inquisitors are an integral part of any religion (remember how Christianity was imposed in your beloved Orthodox Church in the 10th century, how indigenous people of Siberia were forcibly converted in the early 20th century, how shamans were killed or exiled).

Viz, give me facts, not emotions. Specifically, how many people were executed solely for their faith, and not for specific crimes. Otherwise, every criminal will say they suffered for their faith, which is more prestigious than suffering for theft.
After the communist religion was established, there was a softening of attitudes towards other religions; churches were opened, and people were allowed to attend them. But this happened after the old religions ceased to pose a threat to the new one (which happened in all religions).
Inquisitors are an integral part of any religion (remember how Christianity was imposed in your beloved Orthodoxy in the 10th century, how indigenous people of Siberia were forcibly baptized in the early 20th century, how shamans were killed or exiled).

They shouldn't have invaded Rus'. The Tatars were immediately warned, but no, they sacrificed their great empire for just four hundred years of domination. As for communism, if you like being a machine, go ahead. :p

P.S. I especially like how positively, on Lenin's orders, virtually the entire Russian intelligentsia was executed. And do you know why? Lenin needed a people who would blindly follow him, and intellectuals did not belong to that category. You'll say, "The peasants lived in poverty while the powerful bathed in luxury, so naturally, all the nobility was executed in a fit of rage." Yes, this was Lenin's justification, but wouldn't it have been simpler to just confiscate all dissident property and distribute it equally among the people? And the peasants were not poor at all, because the word "rich" comes from the word "God." I don't remember exactly how it's deciphered, but in ancient times, a rich person was considered to be someone who had more of God within them. And the standard of living of the peasants compared to the nobility was almost in the same ratio as ours compared to some politician or magnate.

As for communism - if you like being a machine, go ahead and live that way.:p.

You can be a "machine" in any religion. It only depends on the person whether they want to be a "machine" or not. But if a person doesn't fit into the religious "Procrustean bed," then it is, in any case, a "path of an outcast" for that person. The fate of someone who has "strayed from the pack."

Regarding Tsarist Russia - I agree, it must have been a terrible place. Workers and peasants languished in poverty and died of hunger, while the upper classes basked in luxury - it's an outrage. If the Tsarist regime had been good, so many people (practically all city dwellers) would not have caught fire with the idea of revolution.

Living in that time, I am sure YOU would have been a DECEMBRIST. (Fighting for the welfare of the people, but without understanding their needs.) (They were also PEOPLE).

P.S. (I apologize for the mistakes, I'm trying to express my thought)

P.S. 2. (I believe that LENIN is not the same thing as socialism. I believe that in 1000 years they will say the same about him as they do about JESUS) (HE was also not understood by his contemporaries, except for a small number)
P.S. 3. (Said only to Silvanis and Berserker)