|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 15:05:54 GMT
I don't understand, why believing in the multicolored deities the atheists are considered to confess the sane views, while 'believing in God by the theists' are being criticized as more or less insane view?
I guess that believing in God is even more sane view, just take a look: a human is more developed and well-organized specie all over the universe (we haven't had any contacts or interactions with more advanced species); so taking a human as the more advanced creature (many atheists and the other people, like the philosophers, did it earlier) has to be more obvious choice, comparing a human with the other deities all over the world (or the universe).
Anyway, even if the universe itself seems to be alone and even driven by casual forces with no real cause, so what? - Does it need to be connected with a view that the universe has been never developed by anyone? Our own theories (dozens of billions of them) are more strictly the evidence that the universe is possible to be created.
So, I see no reason to consider atheist as something to be sane. No, I guess the atheist is even much more insane view. And therefore, I think it wouldn't be unnecessary to provide some laws to prohibit atheism. The atheism is a dangerous self-destruction view; most of our daily problems are the result of the atheism.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 16, 2021 15:15:34 GMT
I don't understand, why believing in the multicolored deities the atheists are considered to confess the sane views, while 'believing in God by the theists' are being criticized as more or less insane view? I guess that believing in God is even more sane view, just take a a human is more developed and well-organized specie all over the universe (we haven't had any contacts or interactions with more advanced species); so taking a human as the more advanced creature (many atheists and the other people, like the philosophers, did it earlier) has to be more obvious choice, comparing a human with the other deities all over the world (or the universe). Anyway, even if the universe itself seems to be alone and even driven by casual forces with no real cause, so what? - Does it need to be connected with a view that the universe has been never developed by anyone? Our own theories (dozens of billions of them) are more strictly the evidence that the universe is possible to be created. So, I see no reason to consider atheist as something to be sane. No, I guess the atheist is even much more insane view. And therefore, I think it wouldn't be unnecessary to provide some laws to prohibit atheism. The atheism is a dangerous self-destruction view; most of our daily problems are the result of the atheism. The problem here is that there are more than 2 categories, simply because many people falsely claim to believe in God, and then stab you in the back when you let your guard down. One way to stop this is to counter it by the pretense of atheism. Thus the false-believer, will confess to being an atheist when in conversation with the false atheist! (who is actually a Theist in disguise). So laws prohibiting atheism actually cause atheism. And the freedom to be an atheist helps people towards God. Oh, yes! Surely. It's like, you know, one has to be testified whether or not he can be a believer. Yes, I do agree. One of my colleague is studying Leibniz more precisely, and he explains me some of his teachings. He said that one of Leibniz's proof of God was from the freedom, smth like that: a) God has created the universe b) He chose this world to be the best one, why? c) because in this world we have as evil things so good things d) if there were no evil (or bad things), there were no good things e) or we couldn't choose (or picking) between them f) as soon as we lose our ability to choose between them, g) we would loose our free will h) and having the free will is important to believe in God deliberately
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 22, 2021 17:31:13 GMT
I don't understand, why believing in the multicolored deities the atheists are considered to confess the sane views, while 'believing in God by the theists' are being criticized as more or less insane view? I guess that believing in God is even more sane view, just take a a human is more developed and well-organized specie all over the universe (we haven't had any contacts or interactions with more advanced species); so taking a human as the more advanced creature (many atheists and the other people, like the philosophers, did it earlier) has to be more obvious choice, comparing a human with the other deities all over the world (or the universe). Anyway, even if the universe itself seems to be alone and even driven by casual forces with no real cause, so what? - Does it need to be connected with a view that the universe has been never developed by anyone? Our own theories (dozens of billions of them) are more strictly the evidence that the universe is possible to be created. So, I see no reason to consider atheist as something to be sane. No, I guess the atheist is even much more insane view. And therefore, I think it wouldn't be unnecessary to provide some laws to prohibit atheism. The atheism is a dangerous self-destruction view; most of our daily problems are the result of the atheism. There is a reason for that. Maybe they are trying to say something. Something really important.
|
|