home Thyroid What is atheism and who are atheists? Atheism is the natural state of a normal person

What is atheism and who are atheists? Atheism is the natural state of a normal person

On the Internet, cases of conflicts are not uncommon, the basis of the contradictions of which is religion. Despite the fact that we all live in the twenty-first century, the century of science and constantly updated information, faith still occupies an important place in the human heart.

Some followers of religions reproach people for either following a different faith, or generally denying the existence of the omnipresent Higher Forces.

The latter are called atheists and, unfortunately, they worldview is rarely accepted. Or rather, they do not even understand what is the meaning of such a view of life. Once and for all, we will deal with those who are called atheists, what is atheism in general, and how an atheist differs from an agnostic.

Definition of atheism

Atheism - system of views and worldviews which denies the existence of superpowers. Followers - that is, atheists - of this trend do not believe that our lives and destinies are controlled by an invisible, inexplicable force, which people usually call God.

They believe that there are no angels protecting a person, and demons that harm us in every possible way, and the afterlife, which is presented to believers as heaven and hell.

In general, they deny the existence of what scientists cannot explain or prove. It is interesting that atheists believe that people have a soul, but for them it is a clot of the electromagnetic field and nothing more.

Essentially, an atheist is a person denying the existence of invisible forces controlling or somehow influencing a person's life. Their unbelief extends to all religions at once, and is not directed to one branch of a religious trend.

To think that atheists are simply not believers is unfounded. Because their worldview is subject to certain laws and principles of science, morality and society. Many people notice that their views are similar to another system of worldview - materialism.

Atheists themselves can be divided into three categories:

Warlike. They are too carried away by their idea and actively attack the church and its ministers, ordinary believers, trying to prove to them that there is no God, trying to lure believers to their side.
Calm. They do not shout about their unbelief everywhere, they do not enter into disputes with believers. Disbelief in the supernatural is supported by the fact that science is not yet sufficiently developed to explain some things.
Natural. People who do not know or do not want to know about the existence of religions, God. They just don't care.

What is the basis of atheism

It is not necessary to think that the lack of faith in God is laid in the atheist from nothing to do. It's just that these people think quite rationally, draw conclusions based on scientific knowledge. They are close in spirit to the thinkers of ancient Greece, who still put a person at the center of everything.

Based on this principle, one can basics atheism:

Man is the highest stage of evolution. He is able to manage his own life, create something new and adjust the whole world for himself. Only he himself, his knowledge and experience, can help him in this, but not the intervention of gods and deities.
All processes occurring on earth can be explained from a scientific point of view. The more the world progresses, the less the unknown will remain in it.
All religions are ultimately man-made. The pages of sacred books are written by the hand of a man, from the lips of a man we hear that he had the voice of God or that he was a witness to a divine phenomenon. But not everyone saw it, could feel it.
Besides, why do all peoples present God in different ways, while claiming that he is one? Or why do your good gods, who care about us, allow the existence of injustice, deceit and suffering in a world?

The principles of atheists are quite reasonable. We all know the saying: "There is nothing I haven't seen". And atheists cannot be blamed for wanting to find a logical explanation for everything.

How is an atheist different from an agnostic?

Many not only do not fully understand the essence of atheism, but also do not distinguish between its followers and agnostics. Who is an agnostic?

An agnostic is a person who cannot accurately answer the question Q: Is there a god in the world?

If an atheist seeks to prove that there really is no God, that everything can be fully explained by scientific language, then the agnostic does not prove anything at all. He believes that our world, in principle, cannot be fully known, and if so, then it is impossible to either affirm or deny the existence of the supernatural in human life.

They do not oppose religion but they don't stick to it. After all, neither atheists nor believers have any evidence that could finally resolve this issue.

Faith and religion are things that don't pick up the facts which would unambiguously read either: “Yes, there is a God!”, Or: “Yes, there is no God!”.

And the agnostics, one might say, are somewhere in the middle between the warring parties, not trying to join either the first or the second point of view.

Glossary: Atad - Afribid. Source: v. 3: Arabic-Jewish Literature - Bdelli, st. 381-387() Other sources: MESBE : PBE : TSD : ESBE : :

Atheism - a word of Greek origin (literally "godlessness"). In Greek literature, A. originally meant not the denial of the existence of God in general, but the non-recognition of God or gods, the service of which was established by the state. It is in this sense that Socrates was condemned for A. This is how one must understand the words attributed to Polyvius and often quoted, that respect for the gods is the basis of all social order and tranquility. There is no word in Hebrew that has a meaning analogous to A. of the Greeks. It is not difficult to find an explanation for this. A., in the limited sense given to it by the Greeks, could not have a place among the Jews until they came into contact with other peoples. As long as there was a strong tribal consciousness among them, until then the recognition by all members of the clan, tribe or people of their god was something taken for granted. The latest research in this area has led to the undoubted conclusion that the feeling of ancestral, tribal or national kinship is the focus of all primitive religions, and sacrifices and all the features of a private or public cult converge, as in the center, in this feeling. Family members propitiate the deity with a sacrificial meal. Even some institutions of the Jewish cult, for example. the Passover meal are a reflection of this initial phase of religion. Denial of a generic, tribal or national god would be tantamount to renunciation of one's clan or tribe; such an act implies a completely different spiritual order, and only a long path of historical development has prepared the necessary conditions for this. - In the development of specifically Jewish ideas about God, the dispute between the prophets and their opponents revolved not around the question of the very existence of God, but around the recognition of Yahweh as the only legitimate God of Israel. Even the opponents of the prophets were not atheists in the modern sense of the word. It is possible, perhaps, to apply this name to them, if we mean by it only its original Greek meaning. The prophets insisted in their preaching that Israel was obligated to worship Yahweh alone. This is the explanation for the insistence with which they so often repeat that it was Yahweh who brought Israel out of Egypt. The first provision of the ten commandments is not a protest against A. in the modern sense of the word, but simply a thesis put forward by the prophets, by virtue of which no other God, except Yahweh, freed Israel from Egyptian bondage. The significance of this prophetic argument is well illustrated by the counter-assertion made in favor of the deities Dan and Bethel nationalized by Jerobeam (I Sam. , 12, 28). Insisting with all the force of conviction that Yahweh alone is the supreme and lawful God of Israel, the prophets never reproached their opponents for A. didn't even insist on it. Jeremiah resorts to innocent sarcasm (Jer. 2, 27, 28). The second Isaiah is more blunt in his caustic mockery of idolaters. However, his displeasure is not caused by the fact that some or many deny God. This resentment was only directed against the fact that some or many Israelites serve gods that have no right to be worshiped by the people of Yahweh. - A., moreover, is always the result of criticism and skepticism. And for an individual, and for a whole people, he wakes up late. No nation begins with atheism. The original religious consciousness is always atheistic in one form or another, and as long as the religious consciousness retains its original strength, there is no incentive to critically analyze its content. Periods of decline in religiosity lead to skepticism, which, in turn, gives rise to A. Before the exile, there were no conditions for A in this sense in the life of the Israelite people. Even the exile, although it weakened the religious zeal of many Jews, as shown by some of the psalms of the Korakhids, reflecting the reproach and ridicule to which the pious minority were subjected to by their brethren, finally had a much more powerful influence on the minds of the Jews in the opposite direction. Contact with the Babylonian-Asoirians, and soon after with the Persians, instilled in the Jews a penchant for mysticism, which is always fatal for a sober A. One has only to remember that Jewish angelology and demonology arose in Babylon, in the era of captivity, and it becomes clear that the period of such beliefs was not particularly favorable for the emergence of atheistic aspirations. The literature of the era of exile shows the prevalence of the opposite trend. It can be said with confidence that before the Hellenic era, Jewish life offered little reason to think about atheistic views. This also explains the absence of a word to designate both persons adhering to A. and atheistic systems. Psalm 53, preserved in a twofold version (Ps. 14), mentions the words of a wicked man who denied the existence of God. Those who hold these views are characterized by the epithet nabal, which is contrasted with maskil (v. 3); thus the word "nabal" here means "foolish", or, as Ibn Ezra says in his commentary, the opposite of "chacham" ("wise man"). The Targum to Ps. 14 also joins this opinion and renders this word through "schatia" (fool). Other commentators believe that the psalm being analyzed does not contain a general provision, but only has in mind the blasphemy against God, uttered by a certain person - Titus or Nebuchadnezzar. From the nature of those people to whom these words are attributed, it can be concluded that the commentators understand "nabal" in the sense of "idle", that is, as an epithet that includes both weakness and corruption or perversion of the mind. "Nabal" is thus a synonym for "rascha" or "zed". - An atheist in the modern sense of the word is best conveyed by the expression "Kofer beikkar" used in the Talmudic literature, which denies the main dogma of the Jewish religion, namely the dogma of the existence of a single God. All other designations of heretics found in the works of the Talmudists do not, as one might think, mean a direct indication of the recognized and open denial of the existence of God or the denial of His world-power (Pesik., fol. 163). Atheism is among those heresies of which "minim" was accused (Shab. 116a and Maimonides, Jad ha-Chasakah, Teschubah III, where the author, enumerating the various categories of heretics, "minim", also mentions "those who claim that there is no God and that the world has neither a ruler nor a leader.) But both in the biblical "nabal" and in the definitions of the concept "atheist" given in the Talmudic literature, the matter seems to be rather about immoral, contrary Torah injunctions of behavior rather than specifically formulated philosophical beliefs. About A. one or another person was eventually concluded by his behavior. Observance of the Sabbath was considered as proof of faith in the Creator of the world, non-observance of it gave rise to conjectures about atheistic views. Text Sifra, Bechukkotai , III, 2, shows that non-observance or observance of "laws and commandments" according to the rabbinic understanding decided the question of whether or not to consider someone an atheist. Adam, says the Talmud (Sanh. 38b), was an atheist, for, hiding from God, showed that he did not believe in the omnipresence of the Deity. - Whether the word "Epicurean" (אפיקורס ‎) (see Apikoros) was used to designate an atheist is far from clear. There is no doubt that it denoted one who denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and Revelation. Since both of these dogmas are implicitly contained in the (rabbinic) doctrine of God, the name "Epicurean" could in this detour become synonymous with what is now designated by the term "atheist." Combining the Greek word with the Aramaic root "pakar" (to free oneself), rabbinical authorities - including even Maimonides - consider it a characteristic of the Epicurean to disregard all the rules of decency and decency. Since such a person has a mocking attitude towards the words of God, towards God-fearing people (Ned., 23a; Sang., 99b), his behavior naturally gives the impression that he shares the views of the “nabal”. Hence the advice to always have an answer ready for the Epicurean (Aboth, II, 14). Oddly enough, but the Jews often had to defend themselves against the accusation of A., although, according to the prophets, the history of Israel is a convincing proof of the existence of divine Providence. Israel is chosen to testify of Him. The first fear of Moses (Ex. 32, 12, 13) that the "Egyptians" would not misinterpret the course of events in the history of Israel and thus obtain confirmation of their false idea of the God of Israel, is also the main motive of the theology of later biblical authors. Psalm 79 asks God to reveal Himself in the glory of vengeance, lest the “nations” conclude from the weakness of Israel that He has yielded to idols. Psalm 115, 2 et seq. - the time of its compilation undoubtedly belongs to the era of the Maccabees - expresses the same fears, but in a more sublime, more spiritual form. This psalm reflects the arguments and views of even the most enlightened Greeks. The invisible God of the Jews was beyond the understanding of the ancient world. Only the visible God could count on the recognition of the latter. - Greek thought, perhaps, did not go as far as the pharaoh, who, according to the story of the Midrash (Bereschith rabb., V), which is probably a reflection of the hostile attitude of the Greco-Roman world towards the Jews, refused to recognize Yahweh only on the ground that His name was not included in the official list of deities. Not unreasonably says ap. Paul (Acts xvii, 23) that the Greeks erected an altar to the "invisible God" and the hospitality of the Pantheon was wide enough to accommodate a number of new deities. Two considerations, however, led the Greek world to the idea that the Jews were irreligious: the Jews believed in an invisible God, i.e., according to the notions familiar to the Greeks, in a non-God; the Jews, furthermore, refused to take part in the worship of their gods, while the Greeks were ready to render various honors to foreign gods. These facts, which caused the displeasure of the Greeks, were the basis for the accusation of Jews in A., which was so often and sharply expressed by the Alexandrian enemies of the Jews and Roman historians. Greek philosophers made several arguments for the superiority of Jewish monotheism over other religions, but most of the people were still dominated by grosser concepts. If the Jews, as they claim, are citizens of the cities in which they live, then why do they not participate in the cult of the city gods? The common people were therefore prejudiced against the Jews, and Apion (Jos. Flavius, "Prot. Ap.", II, § 6), Posidonius and Apollonius Molon willingly played the role of spokesmen for popular mistrust of the Jews. There was another proof of the explicit A. of the Jews: in the Roman Empire, they refused to render divine honors to the statues of emperors. This was enough in the eyes of Tacitus and Pliny to accuse them of contempt for the gods and portray them as atheists, as a people devoid of all virtue (Tacit., Historiae, V; see Schürer, Gesch., 3rd ed., III, 417 ). — The same sentiment which led the Greek and Roman writers to accuse the Jews of being irreligious is strongly felt in the accusation of A., which is leveled against them even today. - A. is a very relative concept. Muslims look at both Jews and Christians as unbelievers, and Christians pay them the same. By refusing to accept the conception of their history developed by Christian theologians and to subscribe to certain Christological interpretations of the Bible, the Jews incur the suspicion of A. T. naz. "amixia", the uncompromising defense of one's historical essence, the human right to preserve religious individuality, which confused and angered the Greeks (cf. Hamann's argument in Esf. 3, 8, which preceded the accusations of the Greeks in the era of the Maccabees), even now serves as a pretext for denying the existence of y Jews of real religious feeling and classifying them among the bold deniers of God. The Qur'an's attitude towards the Jews illustrates the same fact. Mahomet, irritated by the refusal of the Jews to recognize in him the expected Messiah, pours out on them all the bitterness accumulated in him and showers them with insults. They are, indeed, "the people of the Scripture," but they have forged many passages of this Scripture. They consider themselves to be believers, but in fact they are non-believers. They do not recognize Mohammed simply because he believes in God, and they do not believe in Him (Koran, sura II, 70-73, 116; V, 48, 49, 64-69; IX, 30). - Among the Jews, undoubtedly, there were atheists, which, by the way, is proved by the nature of the book. The Ecclesiastes, who, with the exception of her last verses, which are probably a later addition, is in fact an exposition of the skepticism that gripped the minds of the upper classes in the pre-Maccabean period of the Hellenistic enthusiasm that preceded the Maccabean era. There were probably also Jews in Alexandria who were openly or secretly inclined towards negative teachings. Philo never misses an opportunity to enter into an argument with atheists. He cites the arguments put forward in defense of A. by those who argue that there is nothing but the world of the sensed and visible, the existence of which has neither beginning nor end; this uncreated and indestructible world also has neither a helmsman, nor a guardian, nor a protector (De somniis, II, 43). Philo does not say that the defenders of the theory he disputes are Jews, but since he mentions others who hold unequivocally pantheistic views, and describes them as Chaldeans (De migratione Abrahami, p. 22), it is very probable that the "others" belonged to his own people. Philo contrasts A. with the teaching of Moses, “who saw, according to the text, the invisible nature and God” (De mutatione nominum, § 2), according to which there is a Deity, and It is neither the world nor the soul of the world, but the Almighty himself. - Medieval Jewish thinkers did not have to deal with a clearly expressed A. Their writings, which are largely apologetic in nature, are directed not so much against A., as against theistic and semi-theistic trends or other opponents: first against the Karaites, then against the Arabs, and even later - against Christian theologians. But the very discussion of the name of the fundamental truths of faith contained in itself, in one form or another, the problems of theism and atheism. The views of the Dari, Mohammedan atheists, who recognized the eternity of matter and the pre-eternal existence of the world and denied the resurrection and the Last Judgment, as well as the teachings of the Motazilites, Muslim free thinkers, who rejected all the eternal attributes of God, served as a topic for a significant part of the reasoning of Jewish philosophers. The latter equally direct their efforts towards the purification of the concept of God from all anthropomorphisms and similar stratifications; they all equally recognize the agreement of the human mind with the word of God's revelation. The question of the eternity of matter, put forward by Muslim atheists, has been at the center of the debate. But in later philosophical systems, for example. y Hasdai Crescas, the eternity of matter is recognized unconditionally. This sheds light on the question of whether Spinoza can be called an atheist. From a Jewish point of view, the answer is definitely no. On rigorous analysis it turns out that Spinoza does not go further than the position taken in some respects by Maimonides and still more by Crescas; it only brings to its most extreme consequences the striving of Jewish philosophy to purify the concept of the Deity from all anthropomorphic admixtures (cf. Joel, Zur Genesis der Lehre Spinozas, Breslau, 1871). - In modern Jewry, as can be seen from some sermons and other similar writings, A. finds adherents of all kinds. The influence of natural science and the conclusions from it, the groundlessness of which is now especially readily recognized by thinkers who have devoted themselves to the study of nature, also affected Jews. Both A., the source of which is a frivolous attitude to life, and a deeper A., which is a reaction against the dogmatism that prevailed before, found their representatives among the Jews. And here, too, the role of a substitute for God is recognized for evolution, and those who defended theism from the pulpit did not forget the arguments based on the idea of evolution. Two points in particular came to the fore here. A. was considered, firstly, from the point of view of its correspondence to reason; The result of this consideration was the conclusion that there is no other worldview and understanding of life that would be so contrary to reason as A. Reason can only be explained from reason. Natural selection or evolution cannot bridge the gap between thought and matter. Dubois-Reymond's agnosticism leaves the whole realm of religious truth free for belief. Whatever, secondly, the theoretical difficulties that, from the point of view of materialism, are caused by the doctrine of God as the creator and ruler of the world and people, the source of life and the Ultimate Reality underlying the universe, this still does not refute theism. These difficulties can and must be very great, for to know God in His essence would mean to be God Himself, but still the fact remains that the divine element in man, his consciousness and self-consciousness, his moral strength and all his moral experience remain for the materialist. unsolvable riddle. Materialism does not have the key to solve them. History, especially Jewish history, is evidence of a supreme will that is outside of us, but which we are able to partake of, of the goals of another being, to the implementation of which we can also strive, of the laws, only by the fulfillment of which a person will achieve happiness and preserve his dignity. In advancing these considerations in defense of their theistic explanation of life and its phenomena, Jewish theists are always ready to modify the symbolism, which they seek to give a higher meaning. The old arguments for the existence of God lost their probative force after Kant. But on the other hand, the moral arguments in favor of the existence of God received a new force in the face of Kantian criticism. The theism of the religion of Israel finds its confirmation in the facts and forces of the history of the people, which serve as "testimony of Yahweh." - Cf.: S. Hirsch, Die Humanität als Religion, Lecture II, Trier, 1858; J. M. Wise, The cosmic God, Cincinnati, 1876. [Article by E. G. Hirsch, in J. E., II 262-265].

Atheism... Unwillingness to deny the obvious...

Somewhere on our planet, a man has just kidnapped a little girl. Soon he would rape her, torture her and then kill her. If this monstrous crime is not happening right now, it will happen in a few hours, maximum days. We can talk about this with confidence by the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion people. The same statistic says that right at this moment the girl's parents believe that the almighty and loving god takes care of them... Do they have reason to believe it? Is it good that they believe in it?.. No...

The whole essence of atheism lies in this answer. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a worldview; it's just an unwillingness to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world where denying the obvious is a matter of principle. The obvious has to be stated again and again. The obvious has to be defended. This is a thankless task. It entails accusations of selfishness and callousness. Moreover, this is a task that an atheist does not need. It is worth noting that no one has to claim to be a non-astrologer or non-alchemist. As a consequence, we have no words for people who deny the validity of these pseudosciences. Based on the same principle, atheism is a term that simply should not exist.

Atheism is a natural reaction of a reasonable person on .

Atheist is everyone who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population), who, according to polls, never doubt the existence of God, should provide evidence of his existence and especially his mercy - given the incessant loss of innocent lives that we are witnessing we become every day. Only an atheist can appreciate the absurdity of our situation. Most of us believe in a god who is as believable as the gods of ancient Greek Mount Olympus. No person, regardless of his merits, can apply for an elected position in, if he does not publicly declare his confidence in the existence of such a god.

Much of what is called "public politics" in our country is subject to taboos and prejudices worthy of a medieval theocracy. The situation we are in is deplorable, unforgivable and terrible. It would be funny if there wasn't so much at stake. We live in a world where everything changes, and everything - both good and bad - sooner or later comes to an end. Parents lose children; children lose their parents. Husbands and wives suddenly part, never to meet again. Friends say goodbye in a hurry, not suspecting that they saw each other for the last time. our life, as far as the eye can see, is one grandiose drama of loss. Most people, however, think that there is a cure for any loss.

If we live righteously - not necessarily in accordance with ethical standards, but within the framework of certain ancient beliefs and codified behavior - we will get everything we want - after death. When our bodies are no longer able to serve us, we simply discard them like unnecessary ballast and go to the land where we will be reunited with everyone we loved in life. Of course, too rational people and other rabble will remain outside the threshold of this happy haven; but on the other hand, those who, during their lifetime, drowned out skepticism in themselves, will be able to fully enjoy eternal bliss.

We live in the world hard to imagine, amazing things - from the energy of thermonuclear fusion, which gives light to our, to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this light, which have been unfolding on Earth for billions of years - and with all this Paradise meets our smallest desires with the thoroughness of a Caribbean cruise. Indeed, it is amazing. Someone gullible might even think that man, fearing to lose everything that is dear to him, created both paradise and its guardian god. in his own image and likeness. Think of a hurricane Katrina, devastated . More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their property, and more than a million were forced to leave their homes. It's safe to say that at the very moment the hurricane hit the city, almost every New Orleans person believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful god.

But what was god doing while the hurricane was destroying their city?

He could not but hear the prayers of the old people who were looking for salvation from the water in the attics and eventually drowned. All these people were believers. All these good men and women prayed throughout their lives. Only atheist I have the courage to admit the obvious: these unfortunate people died while talking to an imaginary friend. Of course, there have been many warnings that a storm of biblical proportions is about to hit New Orleans, and the measures taken in response to the catastrophe that has broken out have been tragically inadequate. But they were inadequate only from the point of view. Thanks to meteorological calculations and satellite images, scientists made the mute nature speak and predicted the direction of Katrina's strike.

God did not tell anyone about his plans. If the inhabitants of New Orlen had relied entirely on the mercy of the Lord, they would have known about the approach of a deadly hurricane only with the first gusts of wind. However, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Post, 80% survivors of the hurricane claim that it only strengthened their faith in God.

While Katrina devoured New Orleans, almost thousand Shiite pilgrims was trampled to death on the bridge in There is no doubt that these pilgrims earnestly believed in god described in the Koran: their whole life was subordinated to the indisputable fact of its existence; their women hid their faces from his gaze; their brothers in faith regularly killed each other, insisting on their own interpretation of his teachings. It would be surprising if even one of the survivors of this tragedy lost faith. Most likely, the survivors imagine that they were saved thanks to God's grace.

Only atheist fully sees the boundless narcissism and self-deception of believers. Only an atheist understands how immoral it is to believe that the same one saved you from disaster and drowned babies in their cradles. Refusing to hide the reality of human suffering behind a sugary fantasy of eternal bliss, atheist keenly feels how precious human life is - and how sad it is that millions of people subject each other to suffering and refuse happiness at the whim of my own imagination.

It is hard to imagine the magnitude of a catastrophe that could shake religious faith. was not enough. The genocide in Rwanda was also not enough - even though priests were among the murderers armed with machetes. Least, 300 million people, among them many children, died of smallpox in the 20th century. Verily, the ways of the Lord are inscrutable. It seems that even the most glaring contradictions are not a hindrance to religious faith. In matters of faith, we are completely off the ground. Of course, believers never tire of assuring each other that God is not responsible for human suffering. However, how else are we to understand the statement that God is omnipresent and omnipotent? There is no other answer, and it's time to stop dodging it.

Problem theodicies(God's justification) is as old as the world, and we must consider it settled. If a god exists, he either cannot prevent horrendous disasters, or is unwilling to do so. Therefore, God is either powerless or cruel. At this point, pious readers will resort to the following pirouette: one cannot approach God with human standards of morality. But what yardstick do believers use to prove the goodness of the Lord? Of course, human. Moreover, any god who cares about little things like or the name by which his worshipers call him is not at all so mysterious. If the god of Abraham exists, he is unworthy not only of the grandeur of the universe. He unworthy even of a man.

There is, of course, another answer - the most reasonable and the least odious at the same time: the biblical god is a figment of the human imagination.

As Richard Dawkins noted, we are all atheists in relation to Zeus and. Only atheist understands that the biblical god is no different from them. And, as a result, only atheist may have enough compassion to see the depth and meaning of human pain. The terrible thing is that we are doomed to die and lose everything that is dear to us; it is doubly terrible that millions of people needlessly suffer even during their lives. The fact that a large part of this suffering is directly to blame - religious intolerance, religious wars, religious fantasies and the waste of already scarce resources for religious needs - makes atheism moral and intellectual necessity. This necessity, however, places the atheist on the fringes of society. Refusing to lose touch with reality atheist is cut off from the illusory world of his neighbors.

The nature of religious faith...

According to the latest polls, 22% Americans are absolutely sure that Jesus will return to Earth no later than in 50 years. More 22% believe that this is likely. Apparently, these 44% – the same people who attend church at least once a week, who believe that God literally bequeathed the land of Israel to the Jews, and who want our children not to be taught the scientific fact of evolution. The president Bush well understands that such believers represent the most monolithic and active layer of the American electorate. As a consequence, their views and prejudices influence almost every decision of national importance. Obviously, they have drawn the wrong conclusions from this and are now frantically leafing through the Scriptures, puzzling over how best to appease the legions of those who vote on the basis of religious dogma. More 50% Americans have a "negative" or "extremely negative" attitude towards those who do not believe in God; 70% believe that presidential candidates should be "deeply religious".

Obscurantism in the United States is gaining strength– in our schools, in our courts, and in all branches of the federal government. Only 28% Americans believe in evolution; 68% believe in Satan. Ignorance such a degree, penetrating the whole body of clumsy , is a problem for the whole world. While any intelligent person can easily criticize religious fundamentalism, so-called "moderate religiosity" still retains a prestigious position in our society, including academia. There is a certain amount of irony in this, since even fundamentalists use their brains more consistently than "moderates".

Fundamentalists justify their religious beliefs with ridiculous evidence and untenable logic, but at least they try to find at least some rational justification. Moderate believers, on the contrary, usually confine themselves to enumerating the beneficent consequences of religious faith. They don't say they believe in God because Bible prophecy has been fulfilled; they simply claim to believe in God because faith "gives meaning to their lives." When a tsunami killed several hundred thousand people the day after Christmas, fundamentalists were quick to interpret it as evidence of God's wrath. It turns out that God sent humanity another vague warning about sinfulness, idolatry and homosexuality. Although monstrous from a moral point of view, such an interpretation is logical, if we proceed from certain (absurd) premises.

Moderate believers, on the other hand, refuse to draw any conclusions from the actions of the Lord. God remains the secret of secrets, a source of comfort easily compatible with the most nightmarish atrocities. In the face of such catastrophes as the Asian one, the liberal religious community readily bears sugary and mind-numbing nonsense. Yet men of good will quite naturally prefer such truisms to the odious moralizing and prophecy of the true believers. Between catastrophes, the emphasis on mercy (rather than anger) is certainly the merit of liberal theology. However, it is worth noting that when the bloated bodies of the dead are pulled out of the sea, we observe human, not divine mercy.

In days when the elements are tearing thousands of children out of their mothers' hands and indifferently drowning them in the ocean, we see with the utmost clarity that liberal theology is the most blatantly absurd of human illusions. Even the theology of God's wrath is more intellectually sound. If a god exists, his will is not a mystery. The only thing that is a mystery during such terrible events is the readiness of millions of mentally healthy people believe into the incredible and consider it the pinnacle of moral wisdom. Moderate theists argue that a reasonable person can believe in God simply because such a belief makes him happy, helps him overcome his fear of death, or gives meaning to his life.

This statement - pure absurdity.

Its absurdity becomes apparent as soon as we replace the concept of "God" with some other comforting assumption: imagine, for example, that someone wants to believe that somewhere in his garden is buried a diamond the size of a refrigerator. Without a doubt, to believe in such a very Nice. Now imagine what would happen if someone followed the example of moderate theists and defended their faith in the following way: when asked why he thinks that there is a diamond buried in his garden that is thousands of times larger than any known one, he gives answers like "this faith is the meaning of my life", or “on Sundays my family likes to arm themselves with shovels and look for him”, or "I wouldn't want to live in a universe without a fridge-sized diamond in my garden".

It is clear that these answers are inadequate. Even worse: either madman, or idiot.

Neither Pascal's wager, nor Kierkegaard's "leap of faith", nor the other tricks that theists resort to, are worth a damn. Faith into the existence of god means faith that his existence is in some way related to yours, that his existence is the immediate cause of belief. There must be some causal relationship or the appearance of such a relationship between the fact and its acceptance. Thus we see that religious statements, if they claim to describe the world, must bear evidentiary nature- just like any other statement. For all their sins against reason, religious fundamentalists understand this; moderate believers, almost by definition, do not.

The incompatibility of reason and faith has been an obvious fact of human knowledge and social life for centuries. Either you have good reasons for holding certain views, or you have no such reasons. People of all persuasions naturally recognize the rule of reason and resort to his help at the first opportunity. If a rational approach allows one to find arguments in favor of a doctrine, it will certainly be adopted; if the rational approach threatens the doctrine, it is ridiculed. Sometimes it happens in one sentence. Only when rational evidence for a religious doctrine is weak or completely absent, or when everything points against it, do the doctrinalists resort to "faith". In other cases, they simply give reasons for their beliefs (eg, "The New Testament confirms the prophecies", "I saw the face of Jesus in the window", "we prayed and our daughter's tumor stopped growing"). As a rule, these reasons are insufficient, but still they are better than the complete absence of reasons.

Faith is just a license to deny reason given by followers of religions. In a world that continues to be shaken by the squabble of incompatible creeds, in a country that has become a hostage to medieval concepts of "God", "end of history" and "immortality of the soul", the irresponsible division of public life into questions of reason and questions of faith is no longer acceptable.

Faith and the public good...

Believers regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of the 20th century. However, while the regimes of Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot were indeed anti-religious to varying degrees, they were not overly rational. [“Stalin” and “Gulag” are added here obviously for reasons of loyalty, which somewhat excuses the author - conformism is excusable, since strength breaks straw. But oblivion - for exactly the same reasons - that Hitler's regime was more than religious and persecuted atheists - no longer, since Mr. Harris himself chose the topic "for atheism", and the lie about the "atheism" of the Nazi regime is a favorite device of clerical propaganda. - VC.]. Their official propaganda was a terrible hodgepodge of misconceptions—misconceptions about the nature of race, economics, nationality, historical progress, and the dangers of intellectuals. In many ways, religion has been the direct culprit even in these cases.

The truth, as shocking as it sounds, is this: a person can be so well educated that he can build an atomic bomb without ceasing to believe that in Paradise 72 virgins are waiting for him. Such is the ease with which religious belief splits the human mind, and such is the degree of tolerance with which our intellectual circles treat religious nonsense. Only atheist understood what should already be obvious to any thinking person: if we want to eliminate the causes of religious violence, we must strike at false truths ...

Why is religion such a dangerous source of violence?

The likelihood that we will overcome the divisions of our world by creating new opportunities for interfaith dialogue is vanishingly small. Note tolerance irrationality cannot be the ultimate goal of civilization. Despite the fact that members of the liberal religious community have agreed to turn a blind eye to the mutually exclusive elements of their creeds, these elements remain a source of permanent conflict for their fellow believers. Thus, political correctness is not a reliable basis for human coexistence. If we want to become as unimaginable to us as cannibalism, there is only one way to achieve this - freed from dogmatic belief. If our beliefs are based on reasonable grounds, we don't need faith; if we have no arguments or they are no good, it means that we have lost touch with reality and with each other.

Atheism is just adherence to the most basic measure of intellectual honesty: your conviction must be in direct proportion to your evidence. The belief that there is no evidence—and especially the belief that there simply cannot be evidence— vicious both intellectually and morally. Only an atheist understands this. Atheist- this is just a person who saw deceit and refused to live by its laws ...

Sam Harris. Translation by Konstantin the Bold

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all interested. All Conferences are broadcast on the Internet Radio "Vozrozhdenie" ...

Atheism(from Greek ἄθεος - godless, atheist) - 1) direction of philosophy that denies existence; 2) godlessness, denial of God.

Atheism can also be seen as a form of suicide, because atheists consciously reject God, the Source of life. A person's commitment to atheism makes him spiritually blind, limits his life horizon to the physiological and spiritual levels of being, prevents the comprehension of the higher meaning of life, the realization of the higher destiny.

In essence, atheism is a faith, because its fundamental provisions are scientifically unprovable and are hypotheses.

From the point of view of Christianity, materialistic philosophy is one of the forms of pagan pantheistic philosophy. Like all other forms of pagan pantheistic philosophy, it sees the first principle of being in impersonal nature, absolutizes the impersonal being of nature, endows it with Divine properties. As a form of pantheistic philosophy, materialistic atheism was considered by many representatives of Russian religious and philosophical thought - N. A. Berdyaev, N. O. Lossky, S. A. Levitsky, and others.

S.A. Levitsky:
Atheism, which denies God the Creator, cannot fail to see the root cause of the world in the world itself. For an atheist, the world is not created, but has existed and will exist forever. Everything in this uncreated world is explained by the omnipotent "laws of nature."

However, the laws of nature can (theoretically) explain everything except the existence of the laws of nature themselves. It is enough to ask an atheist the question of the origin of the laws of nature, how he will have to answer with a tautological, i.e., meaningless reference to these laws of nature themselves.

In other words, the atheist will have to transfer the predicates of the Absolute (primary essence, primary cause, eternity, unconditionality, etc.) to the world itself or to the laws that reign in it.

Thus, the negation of the Absolute avenges itself by absolutizing the relative. In other words, it is easy to lead an atheist capable of consistent thinking, provided he is intellectually honest, to pantheism as a doctrine that deifies the world as a whole.

So, atheism is unconscious; as such, atheism is just as logically untenable as pantheism.

Reverend:
Pride prevents the soul from entering the path of faith. To the unbeliever I give this advice: let him say: “Lord, if You exist, then enlighten me, and I will serve You with all my heart and soul.” And for such a humble thought and readiness to serve God, the Lord will certainly enlighten... And then your soul will feel the Lord; she will feel that the Lord has forgiven her and loves her, and you will know this from experience, and the grace of the Holy Spirit will testify salvation in your soul, and then you will want to shout to the whole world: “How much the Lord loves us!”.

Deacon Andrew:
The Christian view does not narrow the horizon, but broadens it. Everything that is familiar to secular people is also familiar to religious people. What secular science says is also clear to religious scientists. But apart from the "laws of nature" we really see something different. Yes, a miracle, yes, freedom, yes, hope. But this is not instead of and not at the expense, but together.

What is atheism? (1)
Atheism (French atheisme - from Greek atheos - godless), historically diverse forms of denial of religious beliefs, cults and assertion of the inherent value of the existence of the world and man. Modern atheism views religion as an illusory consciousness.

Is it enough not to believe in God to be an atheist? (2)
Atheism is not "simple disbelief in God", but is a worldview that includes the scientific, moral and social grounds for denying the existence of God and the philosophy of life without God.
For a real atheist "God - no!" - few.

What does atheism recognize, on what is it based? (3)

Atheism is based on the recognition of the natural world surrounding man as unique and self-sufficient, and considers religions and gods to be the creation of man himself.

Atheism is based on the natural scientific comprehension of the world, opposing the knowledge obtained in this way to faith.

Atheism, based on the principles of secular humanism, affirms the paramount importance of man, the human person and the human being in relation to any social or religious structure.

How do you understand humanism? (4)
Humanism - (from Latin humanus - human.human), - recognition of the value of a person as a person, his right to free development and manifestation of his abilities, affirmation of the good of a person as a criterion for assessing social relations.

Isn't atheism a cult of man in this case? (5)
No is not. The existence of a cult necessarily requires the existence of external, higher beings or forces that should be worshipped. Man cannot be superior to himself.

How do atheists fight religion? (6)

Atheists don't fight religion. Atheists assert their worldview and defend their civil, constitutional rights.

How do atheists treat believers? (7)
Atheists treat believers the same way they treat any other people - according to their actions.
Moreover, atheists treat the majority of believers as children who have not grown out of ingenuous children's fairy tales, who need to patiently and intelligibly explain the realities of the world around them.

What conclusions follow from the atheistic assertion of the absence of God? (8)
There is no god of the creator, god of the father, and in general no god who would be responsible, love and protect people.

There is no god who would listen to our prayers. People, do everything yourself, based on the capabilities of your own mind and your own strength.

There is no hell. We should not be afraid of a non-existent, vengeful god or devil and curry favor with them.

There is no atonement or salvation by faith. We must be personally responsible for the consequences of our actions.

Nature has neither evil nor good intentions towards man. Life is a struggle with surmountable and insurmountable obstacles in nature. The cooperation of all mankind is the only hope to survive in this struggle.

If there is no god, is there a possibility that he will appear, i.e. will some higher being emerge or signify its existence? (9)
Here you need to decide. Atheism denies, does not recognize the existence of God in the form in which he is described by religious teachings - as a kind of higher (personal or impersonal) being who created and has power over everything known.
If we consider God as some kind of internal psychic reality generated by man himself, then such "gods" really exist, appear and disappear constantly in the mass and individual consciousness. The fact that someone somewhere will come up with another god and force people to worship him, then it won't change anything.

Are an atheist and an agnostic the same thing? (10)
No. Atheist does not believe into god and knows that there is no god. Agnostic does not know, whether there is a god. This is theoretical. But in practice, people who do not believe in God, who are afraid to directly declare their position, call themselves agnostics.

And they can be understood. Religious brainwashing and suppression of the individual in Russia has become so widespread that not everyone can honestly declare their atheistic views. To do this, you need to be at least an honest and courageous person.

Does an atheist have to be a materialist?(11)
In fact, most atheists lean toward a materialistic understanding of nature in one way or another.

Is a materialist necessarily an atheist? (12)
It is better to say that the materialistic understanding of the world naturally leads to the denial of the existence of God.

With what movements and philosophies can atheism be associated? (13)
Anticlericalism, materialism, secular humanism, skepticism, rationalism.
It can even be said that elements of these systems are partly present in atheism, creating its philosophical basis.

Atheism is inhumane and entails crime and aggressiveness. (There is no God - so everything is allowed.) Is this true? (14)
Of course no. Let's start with the fact that among the criminals there are much more believers than among the same scientists. Why? Because it is precisely religion that often makes it possible to avoid moral responsibility for a crime by "begging" for forgiveness.
A believer fulfills the so-called commandments, only because a terrible divine punishment is imposed for their non-fulfillment.
A believer can always pray and atone for any of his deeds.

Morality for the believer is something external. It is given from outside and controlled from outside. And stories about "Jesus in the heart" here, as a rule, cannot help in any way.

This is what gives rise to countless religious conflicts, religious fanatics and even domestic crime. It is rather the believers who live according to the principle: " God exists, so everything is possible!"

An atheist follows the principles of morality and established laws, not because some higher being told him "it is necessary", but based on a deep inner awareness of the necessity and productivity of social institutions and laws. Therefore, the morality of an atheist is deeper, more stable and perfect than the morality of a believer, on the one hand, and more flexible and adaptive, on the other.
To paraphrase the question asked, one could say : "There is no God - so think for yourself!"

Do atheists admit that there are miracles or inexplicable phenomena?

(15)
Scientific studies have proven that all religious prophecies and miracles were generated either by the ignorance of people or the work of scammers.
Another thing is "unexplained phenomena." Of course, in our life there are many inexplicable things and unexplained things. Some of them may never be explained or understood. And some already existing explanations may simply be inaccessible to a single person.

Do atheists allow the existence of only what is reliably scientifically established and explained?

(16)
The meaning of science is precisely to explore the unknown and mysterious, and not to deny it.
Everything that science discovers about the essence of the phenomena of the world was once declared to be the direct work of God. God retreats from the area into which science enters. Not a single scientific discovery confirms what religion says, but gives reasonable, rational explanations for mysterious phenomena.

Do atheists allow the existence of only material objects?

(17)
Of course no. Energy, time, information and much more are not material objects in the general physical sense of the word.

What is "militant atheism"?

(18)
Militant atheism is a false concept introduced by clerics to combat atheism. Never have atheists been militant or militant.
On the contrary, many wars in the history of mankind, starting with the Crusades and ending with the numerous regional conflicts of today (Kosovo, Macedonia, the Indo-Pakistani conflict, Israel and others) are based on religious roots and motives.
But there has never been a single war with the aim of establishing atheism.

What about the destruction of churches and the repression of clergy in Russia during the reign of Stalin? (19)
Firstly, the data about these repressions are greatly exaggerated by the Christians themselves, as they like to do since the time of Ancient Rome. The percentage of repressed clergymen is the same as in other groups of the population and is significantly lower than the number of repressed political workers. It is not necessary to present the matter in such a way that mainly Christians suffered from Stalin's repressions. This is unfair to say the least.
Secondly, all these repressions were carried out by communists who professed the Stalin Cult of Personality - a kind of fanatics of a social religion that deified the living leader.
And, finally, it must be remembered that it was I.V. Stalin, who, by the way, had an unfinished church education, personally restored the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1942 and appointed a patriarch for it. It was this church (now called the ROC) that existed comfortably until the end of the 80s in close cooperation with state structures.

Is "anti-Christianity" part of atheism? (20)
The denial of Christian values and the Christian meaning of life is no doubt part of atheism. However, "anti-Christianity" itself can be an attribute of a religious concept other than Christianity and exist outside the framework of atheism. For example, the anti-Christianity of the pagans.

The Christian religion teaches love. What's bad about it? (21)
Love among Christians concerns only co-religionists. For Christians of other faiths, Christians have a different approach - this is the Inquisition, and the Crusades, and religious wars.
Therefore, Faith in God is organically connected with crimes against humanity, with rudeness, enmity, hatred, evil intentions and cruelty towards one's neighbor.

In religion they teach that man is a higher being? (22)
Religion affirms the helplessness and insignificance of man in relation to God. Any religion teaches that a person is secondary in relation to God, he is his slave, his creation, an assessment of a person will be given after death.

Atheism denies the secondary importance and insignificance of man in relation to God, affirms the intrinsic value of man without any regard for God, does not consider being and the world in this life to be intermediate and empty.

Man is not secondary to God. Man is valuable in itself without any god or other higher being.

It is believed that religion teaches a person the meaning of life. Is it so?

(23)
Religion, especially Christianity, affirming the idea of an "eternal" afterlife, denies and diminishes the value of being and the world in this life, considers worldly life a preparation for the main event - immortality; therefore, the religious existence of a person is devoid of other goals and other meaning than the preparation for death.

Are Buddhists Atheists?(24)
A common misconception about the "atheism" of Buddhism is generated by the lack of clear ideas about Buddhism. Modern Buddhism is a religion and Buddhists are under no circumstances atheists. However, we must not forget that initially Buddhism really was more of an original philosophical system than a religion, and only with the "second turn of the Wheel of the Law" the ideal of Buddha - a man disappearing in lifeless nirvana is replaced by the ideal of the divine Buddha reigning in nirvana. The study of early Buddhist philosophy can help an atheist develop atheistic views.

We often hear that atheism is one of the variants of Satanism (or vice versa). Is it so? (26)

No. This is a false statement widely propagated by the clergy. As for the ministers of the Christian cult, they see the intrigues of Satan in everything that contradicts their confessional interests.
In fact, Satanism is just an ordinary religious movement with its churches, priests and even the bible.
Atheism treats Satanism in the same way as any other religious system - that is, it denies the existence of Satan and considers all views associated with him unfounded.
Accordingly, no Satanist can be considered an atheist, and no atheist can be a Satanist.

Are there many atheists in Russia?

(27)
According to various estimates, from 30 to 50% of the Russian population does not believe in God. From 7 to 15% characterize themselves as atheists. However, the difference between atheists and believers is that they are not required to gather together on Sundays. Atheism is not only a worldview, but also a lifestyle that does not oblige atheists to unite under someone else's leadership.

However, do atheists unite in organizations? (28)
Yes. During 1999-2001, atheist organizations appeared in almost all major cities. This is due to the struggle of atheists for their civil rights. In fact, now in Russia a course has been taken to create a religious, theocratic state, unthinkable benefits and opportunities have been provided to the church, huge sums from the state. budget allocated to finance the ROC. Children are involved in religious organizations, in schools they try to forcefully teach children "the law of God." Churches create their own armed detachments (teams), which are already beginning to intimidate and beat people.
In such a situation, some atheists are simply forced to unite in order to defend their civil rights.

When compiling, the following resources were used:

; ;

Dear believers!

If you want to know anything about atheism - ask! We will be happy to help you get a true understanding of atheism.