New here? I'm Roha — want a quick tour?
Nice! Want a quick tour of this page too?
New here? I'm Roha — want a quick tour?
One 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, in any case, it's a "path of an outcast" for that person. The fate of someone who has "separated from the pack."
...atheism was the starting point for a NEW RELIGION. The religion of communism - that is, paradise on earth, not in heaven. And then... what is atheism - in translation, it means godlessness. That is, a person BELIEVES that there is no God, just as another person BELIEVES that He exists. 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:)
Lelya, I completely disagree.
Firstly, you nitpicked about the money; I think it's clear that I didn't mean numismatists, but people who know how to earn and spend money, and generally live well.
Secondly, concepts like honor, responsibility, nobility, and duty existed long before the emergence of world religions. And man would still have become man (I won't explain, Darwin has already done that a long time ago), and man invented the first tool without Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. But there are many examples in history where religion hindered progress, especially in the Middle Ages; let's remember, 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 on "Science and Religion," and possible spaceflights were very vehemently opposed by all religions because man could see God, but in reality, no one saw him after flying into space.
Enough of insulting Muslims! First, read the Quran and point out specifically where it says that you have to be intolerant of everyone and kill everyone! There are many more such phrases in the Old Testament.
It's stupid to claim that something is written in a book or another if you haven't read the book. It's better to study the history of religion based on texts, not on myths circulating among semi-intellectuals.
NoWizard, I understand your patriotic feelings and your strong hatred towards the West (Germany, USA). "Atheism, the decline of morals, and tales of a beautiful life 'overseas' – this is the weapon they use against us, the Freemasons" – is that really how they fight? Very interesting. And who told you these tales of a beautiful life overseas, which Freemason? Enemies are everywhere. They want to destroy Russia. What scoundrels. But what kind of fanaticism is this? How long will you keep looking for the root of evil outside? The rot is inside, and faith has nothing to do with it. Everyone believes in something. Even egoists and atheists. And where did you get these beautiful stories about Lenin and others? Although, of course, it's well written, bravo!!! Truly.
2Nowizard
Yes, during the Soviet era, Orthodoxy was underground, and the Communist Party was dominant. But a little earlier, it was exactly the opposite, and for a much longer time. The Church got what it deserved because its guilt in the collapse of Tsarist Russia is by no means insignificant. If you know the history of Russia, including church history, you will understand what I mean.
2Apple
Whether God exists or not, regardless of whether a person has a positive or negative opinion about His existence, it is still faith, because NO ONE CAN ACTUALLY PROVE EITHER WAY.
What are you trying to prove?
If faith cannot be reasoned with, but is only an internal, heartfelt act, then let everyone believe what they want and not bother anyone else. But no, there are entire schools of theology that try to explain with reason what is, in principle, unexplainable.
...I have already explained my point of view from both sides. Apparently, it was in vain. Well, then there is nothing to talk about. If you are interested, try to understand the essence of what I wrote above in the posts. Everything is perfectly clear there.
Do you not like the word "atheism" applied to faith? Maybe that's all there is to it? Then it's clear.
What do I personally know about faith, and what path have I taken – it is not for you to judge, nor is it for you to assert.
We are not talking about spiritual experience now, but about the definition of concepts in principle. Don't mix everything together.
What do I personally know about faith, and what path have I taken – it is not for you to judge, nor is it for you to assert. We are not talking about spiritual experience now, but about the definition of concepts in principle. Don't mix everything together.
There are entire theological schools trying to explain what is, in principle, unexplainable.
