Atheism is an illogical religion. Atheism is the natural state of a normal person
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is based on the recognition of the natural world surrounding man as unique and self-sufficient, and considers religion and gods to be the creation of man himself, based on the principles of secular humanism, it asserts the paramount importance of man, the human personality and the human being in relation to any social or religious structure.
Atheism is not a religious faith (since religion implies the existence of God, no matter what he is called), but a worldview that denies the existence of any supernatural beings and phenomena. Atheism is characterized by a belief in the self-sufficiency of the natural world (nature) and in the human (not supernatural) origin of all religions, including revealed religions. There can be a religious and atheistic worldview. But faith is the name of confidence, not supported by facts, in the existence of specific magical forces, creatures, phenomena. Atheism is usually called "faith" by fanatically religious people. Those who cannot imagine their existence without religious worship. It is simply unrealistic for them to imagine that someone could simply not think about a supernatural object, not even assume its existence. That someone can rely not on some Higher Power, but on logic and common sense, on their own strengths and the help of loved ones. Atheism is the absence of blind faith, that is, faith in something that no one has seen, heard, or recorded. In something that exists only in theory, in assumption, and always without evidence.
Of course, atheists tend to believe in general. They do believe. They believe in the fidelity of wives or husbands, in love, in the proof of the equation, in the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc. Young people are chasing everything at once. Even in religion - some follow Enteo to show off and spread rot on the undesirable in the name of faith, some really go to Sunday schools and churches, some on the wave of patriotism for the faith of their ancestors in the temple, some through the wushu section to Buddhism, some for fun follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster .. From the series “this cannot happen, because it can never happen” and without the slightest intelligible foundation under this opinion. “I think so because it is.” And period. More than a typical position of those who believe in anything. It goes perfectly with walking over the heads of those who have a different, wrong opinion and cutting off these heads in the name of faith. Examples are any religious war, any fanaticism.
Faith is a very broad concept, so it is necessary to clarify that religious faith does not mean any faith, but only one that implies the existence of certain supernatural beings and the special world they occupy. In addition, I. N. Yablokov names several more features that make it possible to distinguish religious faith as a special type of faith:
1) confidence in the possibility of communicating with supernatural beings and performing certain actions (rituals) to receive help from them;
2) unconditional faith in the presence of sacred texts and their contents;
3) readiness to recognize the actual occurrence of those events that are narrated in sacred texts;
4) belief in the presence of sacred authorities (prophets, gurus, saints), who are intermediaries between the natural and supernatural world.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
Faith acquires a religious character and becomes an element of religion if it is included in the system of religious actions and relationships, in other words, it is included in the religious cult system. The main element of religion, which gives it originality, that is, distinguishes it from other forms of social consciousness and social institutions, is the cult system. Consequently, the specificity of religion is manifested not in the special nature of belief, or in some special subject or object of belief, but in the fact that these ideas, concepts, images are included in the cult system, acquire a symbolic character in it and, as such, function in social interaction. It follows from this that there is an organic relationship between religious consciousness and religious actions. A religious cult is nothing more than a social form of objectification of religious consciousness, the implementation of religious faith in the actions of a social group or individuals. A cult system, first of all, is a set of certain rituals.
Religion presupposes (even REQUIRES) belief in the existence of God. Considering atheism a religion just because atheists “believe in the absence of God” is incorrect from a religious point of view. There are no dogmas in atheism. Dogma - (from the Greek "dogma" - teaching, statement) is a position or opinion accepted by people on faith, sometimes blindly, as an irrefutable truth, unchanged under any circumstances and situations. The statement “There is no God” for an atheist is not a dogma, but an axiom. Axioms are introduced as the basis on which a further worldview is built, but they are not believed in, they are conditionally considered true until they receive contradictory experimental data. In this case, the set of axioms will have to be changed, but there will be no disaster in this. In this case, we do not have any experimental data confirming that God exists. Atheism is the denial of any religion. This is atheism, lack of religious faith, denial of the possibility of the existence of God. However, as a rule, atheists do not try to put believers on the “true path.”
Atheism cannot in any way be called a sect, since in principle there are no sects of atheists that would organize non-profit organizations with their presence, collect tribute from people and at the same time replenish their budget and not pay taxes.
In order to understand this problem at its root, it is necessary to approach it with a cool head, but at the same time rationally. Although for some reason in our time, and even more so in ancient times, all those people who approached this problem rationally and with the help of logical judgments, talked about it, were accused of cynicism and blasphemy and were suppressed, killed or simply expelled.
There is essentially no big difference between a sect and a church, since especially in our time, both of these communities are non-profit organizations that, purely in fact, live off the fact that they receive fees from believers in their interpretation of the world of people and for this , pay them a portion of their income. Moreover, the size of this income was prescribed by ancient people, who prescribed and elevated these alms to the supposedly Almighty, who for some reason really needs a tenth of the income of his parishioners. In addition, if they wish, believers, if they sincerely love God, should give him as much as their heart tells them, but it all comes down to the fact that the more alms, the more you love God, and he, according to the statements of all believers, for these alms, he will reward you a hundredfold. At the same time, in sects and churches, there are initially rich people or those who, being their members, actually managed to get rich, there are not many of them, but some percentage of them will always be, since this is pure probability theory. At the same time, as we know, the ability to increase capital in a business, where everything is essentially built on buying cheaper and then selling at a higher price, does not at all indicate a person’s knowledge of such global things as science, the universe as a whole, or knowledge about , what different religions and their interpretations say, so it really happens that rich people go there who have money, but who lack ideological support, and therefore have nowhere to engage themselves morally. There, of course, they receive it, and although everyone is supposedly equal before God, but there, even due to their generally unspiritual basis, they very quickly move to leading positions, since definitely, even in near-divine organizations, money decides almost everything, so like God himself, he doesn’t give them a penny.
This is especially clearly manifested in the example of the functioning of such a sect as Scientologists, which, in general, of all the religious organizations whose activities I observed or simply learned from other sources, is really the most barbaric, oppressive to the limit and suppressing both humanism in general and the entire human existence , in the normal sense of the word.
So their creator Hubbard once told his beloved that he could earn big money not through his science fiction, which he actively wrote, but only if he created a religion. As a result, he showed himself to be a perspicacious man and really showed the whole world how it is possible from scratch, even without a base in the form of ancient scriptures, to create a religion that, like everyone else, will also be divorced from reality, but in addition which will also be built on his personal ideological works. In the end, everything worked out and now it is one of the most popular religions in the USA and, at the same time, definitely the most powerful and richest in the whole world, if we take other beliefs. The power over people there is prohibitive, they can be humiliated, enslaved, paid pennies and exploited. In general, in one word, evil.
So, in general terms, everything related to sects and religions, but now think about it, after all, there are no organizations that would collect money, register, organize such various houses for those who do not believe.
The term "atheism" originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or doctrine that was in conflict with an established religion. And only later did this word come to mean a certain philosophical position. With the spread of freedom of belief, freedom of thought and conscience, scientific skepticism and criticism of religion, this term began to acquire a more specific meaning and began to be used by atheists to designate themselves.
Spontaneous atheism is atheism based on something other than science (for example, as a consequence of ordinary common sense or a skeptical way of thinking, lack of interest in the supernatural, ignorance of the existence of religions, etc.).
Scientific atheism is an atheism based on natural science and the denial of the supernatural, when the scientific method is used as the main tool for considering the existence of God (supernatural beings and phenomena).
Metaphysical atheism is usually based on materialist monism - the view that reality is homogeneous, indivisible and material. Absolute metaphysical atheists adhere to some form of physicalism, so they explicitly deny the existence of any immaterial entities. On the other hand, absolute metaphysical atheism is also associated with the opposite, idealistic concept - hylozoism - the animation of the whole world, in which there is also no place for God as an active subject.
Relative metaphysical atheism consists in recognizing the existence of some higher immaterial essence (logos, nous, tao, brahman, substance, absolute, noosphere, etc., etc.), but not possessing the unity of transcendence and being, and this The existence of God as a person is also denied. Relative metaphysical atheism includes such movements as pantheism - “God or Nature” in Spinoza and panentheism (from the Greek pan en theo - everything is in God), that is, the concept of “God-nature”, which developed from Eurigen to Hegel.. The metaphysics of the deists Cherbury, Rousseau, Voltaire, Lessing also denies an individual God interested in the fate of the universe and humanity, and therefore rejects all Abrahamic religions and most other historical and modern beliefs, but deism cannot be classified as a relative metaphysical atheism, since God is assumed - a creator who must have at least once possessed such a personal quality as will.
To the assertion of people with a religious worldview that the spread of religion helps to strengthen moral and “spiritual” values, their opponents respond that a truly moral person acts well voluntarily, according to inner conviction and at the behest of an autonomous conscience, and not in order to avoid terrible things. punishment from one god or another (although it should be recognized that not in all religions the fear of punishment is a motivating factor for self-improvement). Atheists are also confident that atheism itself does not incite violence. While from fanatically religious believers of any denomination and organization, there is always anger and malice, which, as we discuss with them, result in some kind of inadequacy. It really happened to me that believers, since they felt powerless in terms of arguing their thoughts and displaying them in the objective reality of what was happening, even began to threaten me.
Atheists affirm their worldview and defend their civil and constitutional rights. 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 up from simple-minded children's fairy tales, to whom the realities of the world around them must be patiently and clearly explained... If we consider God as a kind of internal mental reality generated by man himself, then such “gods” really exist, appear and disappear constantly in mass and individual consciousness. The fact that someone somewhere comes up with another god and forces people to worship him will not change anything. An atheist follows moral principles and established laws not because some higher being told him “this is how it should be,” 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 more perfect than the morality of a believer on the one hand, and more flexible and adaptive on the other.
To paraphrase, we can say: “There is no God - so think for yourself!”
We met Joseph Solomonovich, as they say, completely by accident. We were both invited to the live broadcast of the television program “The Domino Principle”, dedicated to the topic “There are no miracles in the world.” Joseph Solomonovich defended the stated point of view, I acted as an opponent. After the program, Joseph Solomonovich asked me if our magazine was ready to give the floor to an atheist. I honestly admitted that I have been dreaming about this for a long time. But atheists, unfortunately, seem to have disappeared into Rus'. Unfortunately, because communicating (and polemicizing) with an honest atheist is much easier, more pleasant and, probably, even more fruitful than, say, with a modern occultist or an adept of urine therapy. The only condition for publication was the editors' right to reply. Which is exactly what we took advantage of.
Vladimir Legoyda
Joseph LASKAVIY
Start of discussion. Ending
From an atheist's point of view
Audi partem alteram (Listen to the other side, Latin)
“What can you atheists say? That there is no God?!” – Venediktov, editor of the democratic radio station “Echo of Moscow”, in response to the author’s proposal to give the floor to an atheist.
First, I want to express my joy that I, an atheist, was given the floor. Now this is a rare opportunity - just as under the communist regime a religious person did not have the opportunity to speak out, so now an atheist is not allowed to speak anywhere. In recent years, the only exception was A. Gordon's daytime program “Gloomy Morning”.
A little personal history. At school and during my junior year at the institute, I was a glib and uneducated atheist. Then he began to read both religious and atheistic literature and became a knowledgeable and calm atheist. One incident played a big role in this: in the institute’s dormitory I lived in the same room with a student from Togo, Carso Parfait. before our 1st honey he graduated from some French school, it seems, a Jesuit college, and was a zealous Catholic. The guy was very nice, and his religiosity had nothing to do with me, but one day we somehow “caught tongues.” I believe that his French teachers did not spend much time preparing for discussions with atheists “about God and the stone,” “about the suicidal God,” etc. I was having fun and suddenly I saw tears in his eyes, huge, the size of a currant berry. It seemed to hit me: why am I offending him? After all, neither he nor I will change our views. There were no third parties there who had not yet established their worldview. So, I just want to win the argument? And this is not worth a person's tears. Since then I have been a “quiet”, internal atheist until recently. But now, when the Russian Orthodox Church is successfully trying to take the place of the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, its functionaries and activists have seized a monopoly on TV and are broadcasting dozens of programs there, without giving the floor to opponents, when they are followed by preachers of other religions and completely wild witches, prophetesses, etc. .d. – a materialist simply must talk about his views. Unfortunately, on TV they don’t give atheists words for discussion, and even just to say “I’m an atheist!” - you need to be either Nobel laureate V.Ya. Ginzburg or Kapitsa Jr.
Therefore, thanks again to the magazine “Foma”.
Atheist in the description of clerics
Taking advantage of the fact that TV viewers do not see real atheists, the clerics (all sorts of bishops) created the image of an atheist - such a scarecrow with whom they debate, the argument turns out to be very easy for them because this “stuffed atheist” just stupidly repeats “There is no God, there is no God!” Others, more thoughtful, say that an atheist is the same believer, only he believes that there is no God. In the best case, an atheist is recognized as having the right to a belief system, but a very primitive one - an atheist believes only in what he can touch with his hands and calculate on a calculator, the rest does not exist for him.
Atheist in life
In fact, an atheist sees everything in life, perceives everything. His world is not poorer, but richer than the world of the idealist. An atheist sees the real beauty and complexity of the world and rejoices in it.
Accepting the complexity of the world, he is ready to fight what he considers evil. An atheist does not at all believe that he knows everything; his system of answering questions is scientific. To the question “Why?” he replies: “That’s why.” And to the next question “Why is this?” "Because…". And finally, when his knowledge is exhausted, he answers: “I don’t know this yet, but then I hope to find out.” The atheist knows that the more we know, the more the sphere of ignorance increases, and this pleases him.
Anaximenes of Miletus, who lived in the 4th century BC, told his student: “...your knowledge is a small circle, and mine is a large one. But all that remains outside these circles is the unknown. A small circle has little contact with the unknown. And henceforth, the more you learn new things, the more unclear questions you will have. And this is wonderful, because no matter how boring a world would be in which everything is known.”
A religious person has one answer to everything: “God did it that way!” or “God wants it this way!” It is always correct, unverifiable (cannot be falsified) and therefore false (see Karl Popper about this).
One might say that religious people are like soldiers who paint the grass green and the snow white, awaiting the general's inspection. The atheist, like Laplace, who answered Napoleon I’s question: “Where is the place for God in your system?”, replies: “I don’t need this hypothesis.
An atheist is not an agnostic
A favorite trick of the clerics is to declare atheists agnostics. They say to the atheist: “You yourself admit that you cannot know everything, how then do you claim that there is no God?!” The atheist’s answer is simple: “an agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God, but without knowing everything, I know for sure that the gods you described (Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, etc.) do not exist, and they did not create the world,” those. the atheist is specific. By the way, he can easily imagine beings creating worlds (as in the fantastic stories of Stanislaw Lem), but these will not be supernatural beings, not gods, but simply very powerful and knowledgeable beings. After all, we, with our achievements today, would seem like gods to primitive man.
Vladimir Legoyda
From a Christian's point of view
The modern world is teeming with people who have forgotten that they have dogmas. They would not call their views dogmas, although the idea of progress requires more blind faith than the idea of immortality.
G.K. Chesterton.
Unfortunately, I cannot answer Joseph Laskavoy the way Alexander Green once answered Yuri Dombrovsky, who came to interview him for the magazine “Atheist”:
“Your unbelief will soon pass.” And not only because I am not Green, and my respected opponent is not Dombrowski. And the time is different, and the people are different. To be honest, I don’t really believe that my arguments will be able to dissuade Joseph Solomonovich. The debate between a believer and an unbeliever about faith most of all reminds me of the debate between a lover and a non-lover about love. How can someone who flutters on her wings convince with rational arguments someone who sees the reason for his behavior in a change in chemical processes in the body or in something else, but not in a real feeling for a real person?
What then can we talk about and why argue? I think only about the consequences. A lover (a believer) assures the whole world that love makes him purer and better, although sometimes it is not easy to change. The unloved (non-believer) is convinced that love has a harmful effect on both the lover and those around him. If only because there is no object of love. Actually, this is what my respected opponent writes about: what is good and what is bad? What is right? Faith in God or disbelief in Him? This is what we will try to talk about.
Venediktov, who did not allow my respected opponent to appear on “Echo of Moscow,” is actually wrong. He’s not right even philosophically. To say that there is no God is not an empty phrase. This is a serious and meaningful statement, from which a lot follows. Let us remember Captain Lebyadkin from Dostoevsky’s “Demons”: “If there is no God, then what kind of staff captain am I?”
An atheist in my understanding: on the meaning of dialogue
First of all, it is not entirely clear to me who the “real atheists” are and where – during the day with fire – one should look for them. As for the “stuffed atheist”, I have never encountered such a thing. In addition, let's immediately clarify the statement that an atheist is also a believer. There is no disdain for atheists, no primitivization here. The point is that, ideologically, people can be divided into those who believe in the existence of God and those who do not believe in Him.
I will not now go deeper into the analysis of how the faith of a theist differs from the disbelief of an atheist (and they, of course, differ. Atheism is not “the same faith,” but a different one). I'll just note this. A dialogue between an atheist and a believer makes sense only when both of them, one believes and the other does not believe, in the same God. This point is very important, and I am going to insist on it with all the force that is permissible in our politically correct times. Otherwise, we do not and cannot have any subject for dispute, conversation, dialogue, etc. In other words, if I believe in the future of Russia, and my opponent does not believe in the future of Georgia, it is unlikely that we will understand each other - to understand, we need, as scientists say, to agree on terms. And since atheism - logically and historically - is a reaction to theism (at first people believed, and then began to doubt the existence of the object of their faith), then ideas about God will have to be borrowed from believers, and not from atheists.
Therefore, our polemic with Joseph Solomonovich will make sense if we discuss my faith in God, who, in the words of the Gospel, is Love, and not someone’s idea of a bearded and tired (or nasty) grandfather flying on a cloud through interplanetary space. I personally have never believed in such a God, I do not believe and will not believe, even if all the atheists in the world begin to convince me of the opposite - that is, that this elderly cloud guide is the object of my faith.
An atheist in life: what is it?
I am ready to admit that my respected opponent in this life sees everything and perceives everything.” I am even ready to consider the anonymous atheist cited by my opponent as a kind of ideal type, in opposition to another ideal type - the Orthodox Christian. Precisely ideal, because in real life, alas, not everyone “enjoys life” among those who consider themselves atheists, as well as among those who consider themselves Christians.
However, I categorically disagree with the following expression: “An atheist does not at all believe that he knows everything... his system of answering questions is scientific.” Moreover, I disagree not as an Orthodox Christian, but as a culturologist, as a teacher, finally. It does not in any way follow from the atheism of our ideal type that his system of views is scientific. This is a typical methodological error characteristic of recent Soviet times, when atheism was proclaimed scientific.
Therefore, I will repeat with the insistence of the Roman senator, who insisted on the need to destroy Carthage: atheistic, as well as theistic, worldviews cannot be finally rationally proven. Therefore, it is methodologically correct to contrast not religion with science, but a non-religious worldview with a religious one. It is more logical to contrast science with pseudoscience, that is, with that which claims to be genuine and precisely scientific knowledge, but is not such (for example, astrology, history according to Fomenko, etc.).
Outwardly, it may seem that an atheist is more scientific, for he argues something like this: “Science does not (and cannot testify) in any way about what is beyond the limits of rational knowledge. This means there is nothing to talk about here. This means there is no God.” The reasoning of a believer will be almost the same, right down to the last sentence, which will sound different: “This means that it is impossible to speak about God in the language of science.”
I repeat, I in no way doubt that my respected opponent is well acquainted with and has excellent command of scientific instruments, but this fact follows solely from his scientific training, and not from his atheistic worldview. And since the Higher Attestation Commission awarded me the degree of Candidate of Sciences, I dare to hope that I also know the basics of scientific methodology.
As for the expression “scientific atheism,” it is nothing more than an oxymoron, that is, a combination of the incongruous—like Tolstoy’s “living corpse.” There is nothing offensive to atheism or atheists in this statement - there are simply different ways of understanding the world and relating to it. There is a way of faith, and there is a way of knowledge. Both atheism and theism are ways of believing. (It’s just that the theist’s faith is most often based on special experience, and the atheist’s disbelief is based on scientific data, which cannot measure this experience, therefore they deny him objectivity.) In other words, an atheist can be a scientist (as well as a believer), but atheism can be scientifically cannot. An atheist may be based on scientific evidence, but that does not make atheism a science.
I am also ready to agree with my respected opponent that a religious person (Christian) has one answer to everything: “God wants it that way.” But only if Joseph Solomonovich admits that Venediktov is right, that for a non-religious (atheist) this answer sounds like “Because there is no God.” If my respected opponent talks about the diversity of an atheist’s answers, then, excuse me, why am I, a believer, denied the right to a colored perception of life? Gilbert Chesterton wrote about this: “I do not want to be attributed to me a wild, absurd opinion; I do not believe that our views and tastes depend only on circumstances and are in no way correlated with the truth. I apologize to free thinkers, but I will still allow myself to think freely.” It’s time to blame the anti-clericals for creating the image of a “stuffed Christian.” However, this already turns out to be a citation. To be honest, it’s not involuntary.
As for the reference to Karl Popper, whom I deeply respect, here too I have to disappoint Joseph Solomonovich. And again - not as an Orthodox Christian, but as a culturologist. The principle of falsifiability of scientific knowledge, to which my respected opponent appeals, was indeed introduced by Karl Popper into the philosophy of science in order to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. But Popper argued that only scientific knowledge can, in principle, be falsifiable. And he strictly recognized as unscientific that which cannot be falsified!
In a little more detail: unlike his positivist predecessors, who believed that scientific knowledge is true, and the criterion of scientificity is empirical confirmability (verification), Popper believed that scientific knowledge cannot lay claim to truth. This is just one type of knowledge (along with everyday, religious, etc.). This type is very specific and must be distinguished from others. Popper introduces the above principle as a criterion. Its meaning is that only a theory that is capable of formulating the conditions under which it turns out to be false can be considered scientific. Due to this attitude towards scientific knowledge, Popper was absolutely convinced that any scientific theory would inevitably turn out to be false in the (not) distant future. And scientists will have to find a new logical explanation for the once explained facts. This fundamental falsifiability of scientific knowledge is, according to Popper, the way of developing science.
If the conditions under which the thesis turns out to be false cannot be formulated, then such knowledge is not scientific.
This does not mean that such knowledge should be branded as bad. Let’s take the thesis: “London is the capital of Great Britain.” Provided that it can be proven that London is not located in Great Britain, or that there is no such city, our statement about the capital claims of London will be false. Which, according to Popper, is evidence that this thesis can be considered scientific. Let’s take another thesis: “God exists.” Can we formulate conditions under which our thesis will refute itself? If we do not assume that God rotates in near-earth or other orbits, but proceed from the Christian understanding of God as a transcendent (alien to the world) Person, then such conditions cannot be formulated. Which inevitably takes ideas about God beyond the boundaries of scientific competence. That is, scientific knowledge can neither confirm nor refute the existence of God. Q.E.D.
An atheist is really not an agnostic
I am obviously not fit to be a cleric, since I do not label an atheist as an agnostic. Of course, atheism and agnosticism are very different approaches. The world of an agnostic seems to me less clear and clear, but no less honest, than the world of our ideal atheist and theist: well, a person does not consider knowledge of God possible. And he talks about it honestly. But why an atheist, not knowing everything, probably claims that there is no God is a mystery to me. This, if you like, is one of the greatest paradoxes of human consciousness. Exactly why does he “know for sure”? Indeed, at the beginning of his article, my respected opponent was clearly indignant at the idea of an atheist as a person who believes only in what can be touched with his hands and calculated on a calculator. That is, he probably believes in something else. And he knows for sure that he doesn’t know everything. Where then does the confidence come from that “there is definitely no God”?
Today, many people, when they hear the word “atheist,” believe that this person must constantly be in conflicts with representatives of various religious denominations. But in fact, this is absolutely not the case, because when there is blind faith, the mind is absent or simply asleep.
However, if we apply logic and analyze precisely from a religious perspective: should a person, in order to control other people, blindly believe in various ancient myths written back in the Bronze Age? Or has today come the time in which freedom of thoughts, beliefs and scientific thinking reigns?
The uniqueness of each religion
Surprisingly, even qualified experts cannot name a clear number of religions that exist throughout the world today. For example, Christianity alone has more than thirty thousand different directions, and adherents of each are confident that the true teaching is their teaching.
These religions are represented in various branches of Baptists, Pentecostals, Calvinists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Old Believers, Anabaptists, Pentecostals and others. However, at present there is another very widespread trend - atheism. Its adherents do not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, the question of what atheism is is quite relevant.
Despite such a variety of different religions, it is impossible to get to heaven for one of them without immediately ending up in hell for all the others. Each of them existing today contradicts all others in such moments as the creation of the Earth, the origin of man, the emergence of good and evil, and so on. In addition, various religious movements compare their mystical acquisitions, while proving that all hallucinations or serve as an argument for authenticity.
But everyone knows that miracles do not happen. People who were brought up in this characteristic culture imagine Shiva with six arms just before death. Europeans see angels and demons depicted on Catholic frescoes. Aborigines living in Australia claim that they actually met with the Great Mother.
Thus, the Holy Scriptures of different religions have a lot of contradictions. At the same time, numerous denominations provide rather contradictory images of gods with their prescriptions. Since all this information cannot be true at the same time, there are simply no divine beings related to modern religions.
Atheism concept
Not everyone knows what atheism actually is. In general, this word is of Greek origin. It contains two parts: a - translated as “not” (negation), and theos - “god”. It follows from this that the meaning of this term is the denial of all gods, any supernatural beings and forces, others
in words - this is godlessness. You can also say that atheism is a system of views that proves the inconsistency of the arguments of every religion.
As a rule, atheism is closely related to the concept of materialism. Therefore, it is not without reason that the emblem of the atom has been considered a symbol of atheism for quite a long time. This is explained by the fact that in nature all matter consists of atoms, hence such a specific symbol of atheism appeared. And this is not surprising, since this concept is identical with materialism.
Atheism consists of philosophical, historical, natural science criticism of religions. The goal is to reveal their fantastic character. In fact, it is impossible to say unambiguously what atheism is, since it is a rather complex concept. For example, atheism reveals the social side of religions, and from the point of view of materialism it can explain how and thanks to what religious faith appears, and also explains the role of religion in society and methods for overcoming it.
The process of development of atheism was characterized by a number of historical stages and characteristic directions. Among them were such fairly common types as ancient, free-thinking under the feudal world, bourgeois, Russian revolutionary-democratic, and so on. The most legitimate follower of atheism of all eras was the Marxist-Leninist teaching.
Individual defenders of some religions who do not fully understand what atheism is, arguing that this concept did not exist at all before, but was invented by the communists. But this is completely wrong. Atheism is a completely legitimate result of the development of advanced thoughts of all mankind.
Today there are two main types of atheism - spontaneous and scientific. Adherents of the first option simply deny God, following common sense, while the second option is based on clear scientific data.
The concept of spontaneous atheism
The author of spontaneous atheism, which arose before scientific atheism, is the common people. That is why this species can safely be considered recognized and popular. It manifests itself, as a rule, in oral folk art (various epics, all kinds of legends, songs, sayings and proverbs). This reflected the core principles of the belief that all religions serve rich people who are exploiters. They are beneficial only to the rich and the clergy. Among the numerous sayings that have survived to this day, the most famous are “A man with a fry, and a priest with a spoon”, “God loves the rich.”
From time immemorial, the symbol of atheism was characteristic of the entire Russian people. One of the existing epics even brought out the general image of the famous freethinker Vaska Buslaev, who rebelled against the injustice present then and various religious prejudices. He believed only in himself, and the religious force hostile to people in this epic is presented in the form of a pilgrimage monster. Vaska Buslaev beat the church bell, which was on the head of this monster.
Concept of scientific atheism
Scientific militant atheism gradually developed as knowledge about nature, social society and human thinking accumulated. In every era, courageous and proud people were born who, despite the anger of the clergy, were not afraid of all kinds of persecution and various persecutions. They contrasted religions with the power of science.
Scientific atheism is the most important aspect of the materialistic worldview. Since this is a philosophical science, in the process of explaining the essence and criticizing religion, it emerges from historical materialism. At the same time, the main strength of scientific atheism lies not precisely in criticizing religion itself, but in establishing the healthy foundations of the general spiritual life of the entire society, as well as each person.
Types of atheism
There are two types of atheism in human culture:
- Militant atheism (materialistic), whose adherents directly declare that there is no God and all stories about him are fictions of people. They either have not recognized the relationship or want to have power over those who do not know, speaking on behalf of a God who does not exist.
- Idealistic atheism, whose followers directly declare that God exists. But they are leaving all religious directions because they understand that the Bible is an erroneous concept, because Jesus cannot be the creator of the Universe, and on the seventh day after the creation of the Earth, God does not rest.
Today, materialistic scientific atheism, under the pressure of various discoveries, is being rebuilt into idealistic. Followers of the second are rather passive. They move away from the Biblical concept and do not seek the truth at all, while believing that religion is a deception and manipulation of people.
Believe it or not?
If we talk specifically about God, who is absent from churches, then on the basis of an incorrect religious feeling it is impossible to build a complete picture of the worldview and have a personal culture of knowledge, which has great possibilities. The human mind is limited, which means that people's knowledge is also limited. Thanks to this, there are always moments that are taken only on faith. It’s not for nothing that many atheists actually claim that atheism is a religion.
God proves his existence to all people and every person in some characteristic, strictly individual form, and to the extent that the people themselves are righteous and sympathetic and believe in God. God gives irrefutable evidence of his existence to people precisely according to their faith, but not their reason. He always hears prayers and answers them, as a result of which the life of the believer then changes, which is manifested in the events that happen to him.
Indeed, God communicates with people only through the language of life circumstances. Any accidents that happen to people are direct clues aimed at the need to make some changes towards the righteous path. Of course, many are unable to notice these clues and react to them, since they are sincerely convinced that atheism is a religion that allows them not only to stand out from the surrounding crowd, but also to have faith solely in their own abilities.
Communication with God
Undoubtedly, God communicates with people mainly through the language of life circumstances. When faced with any accident, an intelligent person is obliged to think about it, after which he will begin to clearly distinguish what exactly God is telling him: whether he promises his support or warns against any upcoming possible sins, mistakes and delusions.
Despite all these judgments, atheists are present in huge numbers throughout the world. Moreover, the majority of adherents of such views live in Europe. Atheism in Russia is a fairly common concept. There are many people here who sincerely believe in God, but there are also those who are convinced of his absence.
The first argue that communication with God cannot be somehow built through various intermediaries. All churches claim their role. Direct connection with God is filled with physical meaning. However, it is absent among demonic individuals, since they are based not on the providence of God, but on their own personal calculations.
In addition, people who drink alcohol are generally unable to record any investigative connections between their actions and the situations they cause. Their life is very often filled with adventures and disasters. It’s no secret that Russian people are famous for their addiction to alcohol, which is why such a phenomenon as atheism in Russia is quite relevant and widespread.
As for true believers, they may not be aware of all the possibilities of conversation with God and are confident that prayer will always be heard. When certain changes in life do not occur, a person, according to the meaning of his prayer, receives several other explanations as to why this did not happen. However, God can help people only in those moments that they themselves make every effort to explain. It’s not for nothing that people say that trust in God and don’t make a mistake yourself.
Who are atheists today?
It so happened historically that today almost all state special programs in the fields of education, culture, healthcare, and law with support lead to the formation of only materialistic views in people. Atheism relates such a worldview to three main concepts: the scientific direction of atheism, evolutionism and humanism with all its derivatives.
Ideologists have recently been able to quite firmly convey to the public consciousness the idea of such a concept as atheism-materialism. This is the only scientific and historically progressive worldview, which throughout its entire existence has been the correct achievement of the natural sciences.
Atheists are now perceived by many as sane, free, enlightened, educated, cultured, progressive, civilized and modern. Now even such a word as “scientific” has become synonymous with the term “true”. Thanks to this, any worldview that differs from materialistic views can be considered not next to scientific hypotheses, but contrary to them.
Definition of atheism
Based on the fact that atheism is, which is quite difficult to define unambiguously, we can draw the following conclusion: atheists have only one authority in knowledge - modern official scientific data. That is why bearers of scientific and atheistic worldviews have the same views on many things. This fact is evidenced by a clear answer to the question of what atheism is. The definition of this concept states that atheism is godlessness, which is based on scientific knowledge.
In other words, such a philosophical materialist doctrine denies the supernatural existence of God, just like any immaterial one, but at the same time it recognizes the eternity of the material world. As is commonly believed in Christianity, the basis of atheism is that it conventionally proclaims its opposition to religions. In fact, according to its content, this concept represents one of the many forms of religious worldview.
Satanism and atheism
Many people have the mistaken view that atheists support the views of Satanists. Moreover, there is an opinion that the history of atheism includes such a movement as Satanism. This is completely untrue, and such a false version is propagated by clergy. For example, followers of the Christian faith see satanic machinations in many things and situations that are contrary to their interests.
In fact, Satanism is an ordinary religious movement with its own churches, clergy and bible. In other words, religious atheism can be related to Satanism in the same way as any similar system. That is, the existence of Satan is denied, and thoughts associated with him are considered unfounded. Therefore, no Satanist can be an atheist, and vice versa.
Atheism does not exist. At least in the form in which atheists imagine it. Those who consider themselves atheists are accustomed to contrasting atheism with religion, and all monotheistic religions and pagan cults are united into religion on an equal basis. And atheism seems to be above all this nonsense.
But from the point of view of Christianity, atheism is simply one of the many varieties of what is commonly called “paganism” in the Christian tradition. The word “atheism” unites different faiths, beliefs, superstitions, all kinds of individual, local mini-religions. That is, there are monotheistic religions, traditional national religions, and there are atheistic religions.
For example, in the wilds of discussions I came across the fact that not only Christians were in conflict with pagans, but in Japan some pagans were intolerant of others. And the conclusion from this: “The only good thing here is atheism, which will never start a religious war because some god was called incorrectly or was treated disrespectfully.”
What naive faith! And most importantly, what a narrow understanding of “God with a small G”, he is an idol, he is an idol. A person will always have a religion, no matter what it is - Shinto or scientific communism. And he will organize another religious war because “some god was called incorrectly or was treated disrespectfully.” Only this god will be, for example, Stalin. And there will be an Inquisition, and what kind of one, and there will be religious persecution, and what kind of persecution. With complete, mind you, “scientific atheism”.
I’m almost sure that the pagan gods of ancient times were not perceived specifically as fleshy creatures - I’m generally not inclined to consider people of two thousand years ago dumber than ours. Ancient deities were also symbols, embodiments of certain ideas. It’s like the old story about Stalin telling his son: “Do you think you’re Stalin? No. And I’m not Stalin. Here he is (pointing to his portrait) - Stalin!”
A person needs to believe in something. Any atheist believes in something - in a bright future, in democracy, in the victory of communism, in the people. It is necessary to believe in something - otherwise you can put a bullet in your forehead just by looking around. This faith is his religion. Numerous false gods, in which everyone becomes disillusioned with age.
“A-theism” means only one thing: I do not believe in those gods, which by this time in the language it is customary to unite under the word “god”. But language in general is a rather meager and imprecise tool for conveying meanings - and the task of Homo sapiens is to recognize, behind random and vague words, the phenomena, feelings and experiences that gave rise to them. By the way, this is precisely why machine translation is so bad - a machine cannot “guess” meanings comparable to real experience and translate them successfully: it simply does not have human experience. So words are a very imprecise thing. If you call a butterfly an “animal,” you will at least be an original when it comes to colloquial speech. Moreover, this will be absolutely normal in the context of biological terminology, which has risen much higher in the understanding of the butterfly and quite reasonably united it with other creatures from the “animal” kingdom.
In the same way, atheism is simply not yet commonly called a religion, although in essence this concept unites a bunch of small unidentified religions. This kind of motley polytheism is the classic situation of paganism. Sometimes different atheistic religions are tolerant of each other, but most often not very much: like nationalism and liberalism. And those people who talk about the intolerance of traditional religions, condemningly pronouncing “monopoly on truth,” immediately pour poison on their ideological opponents, that is, representatives of other faiths (well, in a bad situation, they even reach religious persecution and mass genocide, this is a matter of circumstances ). Such a strange and seemingly irrelevant commandment as “do not make yourself an idol”! In fact, people rarely think about the meaning of this commandment, and it is not for nothing that it comes first. Yes, I am, yes, a person of the 21st century, and an idol, yes, excuse me! Eh, this? Well, is this really an idol... this is the ultimate truth, and don’t encroach on it, oh you...!
So the law on insulting religious feelings in its current form is, of course, unfair. Because religious feeling is familiar to everyone. And “atheists” too.
I'm not trying to debunk the atheistic theory, but I'm just trying to show that it's just a theory and nothing more. And that atheism is faith. If religious monotheists (Christians, Muslims, etc.) believe that all matter, everything that exists in this world was created by the One Creator God, then atheists believe that everything that exists happened by itself, as a result of some physical processes. Atheists love to throw out various pretentious phrases, like this: “You should not believe, but know.”
To know, i.e. know, study, have information about something. Well, okay - let's find out if you insist so. Tell me, an uneducated believer, how, in what way, as a result of what and why, all matter, our Universe and our planet, came into being? You will say that as a result of the “Big Bang”, etc. Suppose, but now prove it to me, prove to me, in fact, that the “Big Bang” ever existed in principle. What hard evidence do you have for this event? Not arguments, not hypotheses, not guesses and not assumptions, but strong evidence, as in court.
There is no evidence and therefore I can only believe that the “Big Bang” ever happened, trust you, your words, believe that you are right. This means that without evidence, I can only either believe or not believe in it. Don’t forget that the “Big Bang Theory” is even called a theory, a hypothesis. It follows that atheism is nothing more than faith. Atheism probably cannot be called a religion, but faith and confession can certainly be called. This means that an atheist can safely be called a believer! By the way, some atheists do not hide this fact at all; there are many different philosophical movements based on atheism, for example Taoism.
Atheists love another pathetic phrase: “If atheism is faith (religion), then bald is hair color (hairstyle)” - not literally, but this is the meaning. But, colleagues, don’t you see that this example is catastrophically incorrect? A bald person cannot have a hairstyle, since hair is obviously absent, i.e. their absence can be recorded even by at least touching his head, i.e. you can prove their absence in various ways, very easily. But it is impossible to prove the absence/presence of God - which means the example is not correct. You need to believe that there is/is no God, but you don’t need to believe that a bald man has no hair, this is already clear. You don’t have to take it on faith that he doesn’t have hair, when you have to believe in the presence/absence of God. If you compared this not with a bald head, but with something else that cannot be proven and must be taken on faith, then the example would be suitable, but not in this case, and therefore you should not be deluded by the beauty and eloquence contained in this incorrect phrase.
Another phrase: “If a person does not smoke tobacco, does this mean that he does not smoke tobacco?” No it doesn't mean that. If a person does not smoke tobacco, then he smokes something else, or does not smoke at all. This is a kind of play on words, a verbal pun, trying to compare one thing to another, in an incorrect comparison. Many people are captivated by the funniness and subtle humor of such phrases. But you can say anything you want, and even more so even if the examples are incorrect, but this will not solve the issue. What do cunning atheists want to show with this phrase? They want to compare it with another phrase: “If a person does not believe in God, does that mean that he believes in the absence of God?” Those. The verb “smokes” is compared with the verb “believes”.
But I would put it differently: “If a person does not believe in God, then this means that he believes that the Universe arose, according to the theory of evolution, on its own, out of nothing, without anyone’s will.” Those. For an atheist, it seems absurd that if they do not see, and cannot measure God by any laws of physics, then why should He exist then? And for believers, it seems absurd that the Universe, supposedly out of nothing, could be born on its own and become what it is now.
This means that both approaches seem absurd in their own way for different parties. This means that it’s all just a matter of the ability of the human brain to understand this or that judgment. Some do not accept it and cannot understand it, others accept it.
I also do not entirely agree with the well-known formula proposed by believers regarding atheism: “Religion is belief in God, atheism is belief in his absence.” Atheism is the belief that everything that exists appeared by some other person (namely, purely scientifically) in a way other than what was created by God. Those. The key point here can be considered not precisely the presence/absence of God, but precisely the origin of all things. Well, in fact, this formula is still correct, atheism, whatever one may say, is the belief in the absence of God.
What offends atheists is that this formula calls atheism faith, and not something else. Atheists are against the very concept of faith, they believe that only weak, uneducated, ignorant people can believe (or have faith, which in this case is unimportant), when, as a “knowledgeable” or enlightened person, they will be drawn to knowledge, enlightenment, and only to them one, defining everything that exists through them, and only through them. Atheists want to attribute to themselves only elements of practical, experimental knowledge of the world, through scientific methods, when in practice everything is far from being so smooth, in fact.
Well, okay - a practical method of understanding the world. But did anyone who has ever lived on earth (and not only atheists) manage to create living things from non-living things? There is the entire periodic table, all the elements, various laboratories, time, has anyone managed to use these elements to create some kind of organism similar to, or even the simplest amoeba? Just take various elements and throw them into a vessel, like a chef mixes ingredients for his dish, and end up with a living organism? Well, what kind of practical, experimental method of cognition can we talk about then, my dear colleagues? Atheists, again, believe that given many billions of years, living things can still arise from non-living things. Well, where are our billions of years? You never know what can be said, where is the evidence? Atheists will say that the evidence is underfoot, and that I myself, since I am a living being, am the proof of this thesis. But isn't it funny? Those. again, everything slides down to trust, that it seems like I have to trust them, believe them that this is possible, after billions of years.
Other questions also arise, to which the atheistic theory does not provide answers, within the framework of proven ones, but only relying on trust in them. Well, okay, let’s assume that the “Big Bang” did happen, which, in fact, does not make any sense. The question is, where did it come from? Those. Before the Big Bang there was nothing and suddenly everything appeared. What is this “Nothing”? Or ask the question differently: What happened when there was nothing yet, how much of it was there, and for how long? And also, what will happen when nothing happens? If you rely on atheism, then this is not at all clear.
The Sun will go out in 5 billion (or how many?) years, and our planet will turn into the likeness of some Pluto - a lifeless piece of icy mass, and the Universe will continue to exist, without any life, if one has not arisen ) on another planet, in the same way, i.e. over billions of years, from non-living matter. This is the option offered by atheists, perhaps not all, since it is simply not physically realistic to be familiar with all their theories, but many. And the Kingdom of God, or some kind of Heavenly palace Valhalla - these are just inventions of ignorant romantics, preventing us (in the sense of them) from inventing the creation of science, or rather our numerous Theories, and then receiving bonuses and crazy fees for them from customers these theories and from those who benefit from it. And also fame in certain circles, thereby comforting and pampering one’s pride, vanity, and desire for dominance (according to S. Savelyev).
Gentlemen, would-be atheists and those who sympathize with them, if you decide to honor me with your comment, then you should not waste your emotions and saliva! Give specific quotes of mine and your refutation of them. A refutation is not such words as: Nonsense, crap, stupidity, etc. If you can’t squeeze anything out of yourself other than this, then you are an idiot and a fool! And you are leaving your comment here because the article touches a nerve in your immature views and causes you to be indignant. And all these attempts to watch kilograms of videos of Dawkins and other Nevzorovs are just an attempt to seek solace and reassurance.
Your personality is immature and it is vital for you to have someone on your side, to have someone confirm your views, thereby avoiding the unpleasant feeling in your gut, which is nothing more than indignation. Your psyche is simply trying to avoid stress. People like you are the kind of people who attack the weak and infirm to make themselves feel stronger. A large number of religious people really cannot answer your arguments with anything meaningful, and after they lose the argument, you enjoy your victory, proudly reveling in endorphins. Your self-esteem increases and you feel more dominant. Many believers are simply not accustomed to conducting disputes and discussions in which science and religion will be opposed, because these are two concepts located on different planes, in different coordinate systems.
Science answers the questions “how” and “how”, while philosophy and theology answer the questions “why” and “why”. Many believers are really not very literate in these matters, and thereby provide food for such vultures who swoop down on easy prey. Would-be atheists - you are such vultures, because you are trying to assert yourself and increase your low self-esteem by attacking an obviously weak opponent. It’s like taking candy from a child or robbing a pensioner.
Big Bang you say? Did humans descend from monkeys? Did apes and humans have a common ancestor? Evolution? - For God's sake! As you wish! If you, representatives of science (not you specifically, but real scientific people), think so on the basis of various scientific conclusions, then I can agree with you, or rather, simply trust you. You will say that I have changed my shoes from stupid, medieval creationism? - Why?! Why should I profess this creationism? Because you decided so and it’s so convenient for you? Yeah, I know, I know, because it will be more convenient for you to win an argument with me and make me look like a fool! This is an easy way to boost your low self-esteem! Well, no, gentlemen, I’m afraid to disappoint you, but modern theology has long ceased to profess medieval ideas about the world. Why? — Because, as I said earlier: science answers the questions “how” and “in what way,” and philosophy and religion (i.e., the humanitarian approach) answer the questions “why” and “why.”
Therefore, I completely trust you, as someone who speaks on behalf of science, and if you claim something based on proven facts, experiments, experiences (etc.), then why should I argue with you, saying that red is green ? Nope! Look for a fool elsewhere!
The debate between atheists and non-atheists is pointless. And it is started only by people trying to assert themselves. An atheist deliberately drives the enemy into his lair, thereby forcing him to play by his rules. Those. he begins to contrast science and religion, he begins to use scientific terms, cite scientific facts, and so on. Thus, a non-atheist must sooner or later fail to find an argument in anything and thereby end up “in the fool.” But arguing on this level is like playing with a sharpie who has 9 aces in his deck. You will lose, sooner or later.
However, in the Holy Scriptures you will not find the moment where it will be said where anything scientific, any of your scientific discoveries and facts, will be refuted. The Holy Scriptures are written in purely humanitarian language, bookish language, not the language of science, but the language of images and comparisons. And all these “fairy-tale phenomena and characters” are nothing more than metaphors and hyperboles! Why this way and not otherwise? — Yes, because the Holy Scriptures were created in such a way that they were understandable to different people, from different nations and at different times. Two thousand years ago and two thousand years ahead. Always. The Holy Scripture is not a scientific treatise, but something else, and therefore in scientific works everything that you are looking for in the Bible is important, and in the Bible it is important to convey a humanitarian message to people.
Therefore, arguing with a cheater is a waste of time. On the contrary, if a person from science (not necessarily a would-be atheist trying to assert himself) says something referring to facts and science, then you need to take this into account.
However, answering the main question of this article: Atheism is also a faith, and an atheist is a believer; You can still hit an atheist with his own weapon, i.e. still being in a purely scientific environment and not avoiding scientific terms and laws. It’s just that the dispute can end logically with a score of 0:0, or 1:1, i.e. draw.
The fact is that there is hardly an atheist who can prove to me, using absolutely any scientific knowledge and methods, one controversial point. Namely, the Intelligence of the creation of matter. The Big Bang happened, then evolution, monkeys and Darwinism. Awesome! But questions arise:
- What happened before the Big Bang? those. Then, out of the blue, the Big Bang happened, like a snap of the fingers, and all matter, the Universe and the planets came into existence. But why did it happen? There was nothing and suddenly everything appeared. Are you saying that nothing happened? How should we understand this? Do you have direct evidence of this? Are you sure? Sources?
- Was the Big Bang, or any other Birth of Matter (the Universe) part of Someone’s plan, or did it happen on its own, just like that? Believers claim that everything happened according to the will of God, i.e. a rational, personal Being, and atheists claim that Everything happened without will, on its own, suddenly. Believers have no evidence that they are right (not at all), do atheists have evidence that they are right? Are you sure? Sources?
Thus, two serious questions stump any dispute between a believer and a so-called non-believer. You can cynically laugh at believers as long as you like and call them medieval obscurantists, but not one atheist has yet proven or answered these two questions.
Another important trick of atheists is that they start hitting it head on, like prove to me that God exists and I will believe in him. And if I don’t see him, it means he doesn’t exist. Those. the fact that it cannot be measured, weighed, etc., in any scientific way, means there is no God, which means the believer is a fool, and I am smarter than him. And the believer cannot object to this. Well, really, what can you say? It turns out that the atheist won and is right? - To hell with you, my friend! Why should we play by your rules?
We will play on equal terms, with a new deck. And in this case, the approach comes from the outside, i.e. from the other side. The fact is that for believers there is no (or rather should not be) question about the presence/absence of God; this question is raised by atheists. So these two questions arise. Yes, even one: Was Everything created by God (personal, intelligent, i.e. someone or something intelligent), or arose by itself out of nothing? Those. not what God is or is not, but the question of the origin of all things. Proof? - Neither one nor the other has evidence, which means that the chances are 50 to 50. Yes, yes, that’s right. Not 70/30, but equally. Because I equally cannot prove that Everything was created by God, just as you cannot prove that Everything arose by itself. Therefore, religious consciousness is born based on this question. All these theories, the Big Bang, monkeys, evolution are not important, what is important is that if Everything was created by Someone intelligent, then such a phenomenon as religiosity arises, where a person is looking for a way to This Someone.
Therefore, it turns out that without evidence, we both have to rely on faith, i.e. believe in one thing or another. To me, that All Matter was created by a personal God, to you, that it arose on its own. So it turns out that you, an atheist, are also a believer, and atheism is also, consider it, a religion.
