Polly Fortune _ Polly Encyclopedia

What is atheism? God refers to the supernatural (that is, not limited by the laws of nature), with personality and consciousness, and can influence the existence of natural things. Atheism doesn't believe in any such existence. Atheists often come into contact with various theistic concepts and choose atheism after thinking. I don't think people who don't believe in God because they haven't been exposed to theistic religion and haven't thought about the existence of God should be regarded as atheists. For those who just don't believe in the existence of a certain god (such as a Christian god), but still believe in some supernatural gods and ghosts (such as some Buddhists), they should not be regarded as atheists. There are two kinds of atheists: one is a "weak atheist" who believes that there is no conclusive evidence to prove the existence of God, so he does not believe in the existence of God. The other is "strong atheists", who not only don't believe in the existence of God, but also believe that God doesn't exist. Isn't it the same thing not to believe in the existence of God and not to believe in the existence of God? No. Not believing something is true doesn't mean believing it is false. "Don't believe" only denies the evidence, and "believe" has evidence. People who don't believe in the existence of God may not completely deny the possibility of God's existence, but just think that it is impossible to make people believe in this possibility so far, or that human beings can't know whether God exists, so they become "agnostics". Why don't atheists believe in God? Every atheist may have his own reasons for not believing in the existence of God. Some people deny the existence of God in philosophy. Some carefully compare all kinds of "evidence" about the existence of God, but think that the evidence is insufficient. Some people study the scriptures of a popular religion (such as Christianity) and think that God is ridiculous. By denying the existence of this particular god, they denied the existence of all gods. Some deny the existence of God only by life experience without philosophical or theological thinking. Can you assume that something doesn't exist? This is entirely possible, for example, in mathematics, we can prove that there is no prime number greater than any other prime number; In physics, we can prove that perpetual motion machine does not exist. For the unknown thing, if we determine in advance that it does not exist, then to overturn this determination, we only need to find it later; However, if we assume that it exists in advance, we need to thoroughly search all places to overthrow this assumption, which is often unrealistic. So in practice, especially in scientific research, in order to be able to detect something, we all assume that it does not exist until there is conclusive evidence to prove its existence. Theists are actually quietly applying this principle. For example, Christians obviously believe that the gods in Greek mythology do not exist, although they have not searched thoroughly. Similarly, if we believe in the existence of God, such a belief can't be detected, because we can't find all the places to overthrow such a belief. Then, in order to be able to detect it, we'd better assume that God doesn't exist and wait for others to show us conclusive evidence of God's existence. What if God exists but can't be detected? If God exists, as long as he communicates with our world, then he can be detected. If God can't be detected, then he won't communicate with our world. For us, such a god does not exist. Such a test does not have to be strict and scientific, but the evidence must be direct, obvious, objective and conclusive, and can only be explained by God. How else do I know that the evidence proves that it is God and nothing else? If the biblical records are to be believed, the Israelites have directly detected the existence of God many times. Why didn't God let people directly detect it later? What kind of evidence is needed to believe in the existence of God? Such evidence must be objective, not someone's subjective experience. If someone claims that he has seen God with his own eyes, it is probably just an illusion, or he is deliberately deceiving others. This evidence must be direct and obvious, and there is no other explanation. For example, Christians often preach that after a Christian has an incurable disease, everyone prays for him, and as a result, he will be fine. This is because God is at work. Anecdotal evidence like this is only convincing to those who are willing to believe it. There are many reasons for this person's sudden recovery, which may be the result of psychological suggestion, the function of his own immunity, or some unknown factor, but the unknown factor does not mean that he is a god. Such evidence must be very conclusive. The existence of God is an extraordinary phenomenon, which needs very conclusive evidence to convince people. For example, if God can show the face of man to the whole world in the sky, even for a while, it will be enough to dispel anyone's doubts about him. Although the existence of God is undetectable, we can logically confirm the existence of God! Theists have spent thousands of years putting forward various reasons and trying to prove the existence of God logically, but so far they have not found any proof that can stand scrutiny. If someone thinks that he has found a new proof, we can be sure that there are loopholes that he has not found, either the premise is wrong or the reasoning process is wrong. Even if one day, someone finally finds a logically impeccable proof, it doesn't mean that God really exists, because logically correct doesn't mean that it really exists. Logic is only a tool for analyzing data and reasoning, and only when it is actually detected is the final conclusion. Logic just lets you know how or where to start the test. So far, all the proofs about God don't even have this. If you believe in God and it turns out that God doesn't exist, you won't lose anything. But if you don't believe in God, it turns out that God exists, so go to hell. So being an atheist is stupid! This is the so-called Pascal bet, and there are several loopholes. First of all, it doesn't tell us which god to trust. There are many religions in this world, all of which have different or even completely opposite doctrines and commandments. You can't believe in all religions at the same time, you can only choose one or several letters. These religions believe in different gods. How do you know that this god you believe in is true? If it's fake and other gods are real, are you going to another hell? Is there anything worse than not believing in any God? Second, "If you believe in God, as a result, God doesn't exist, and you won't lose anything" may be incorrect. If the god you believe in does not exist, but other gods exist, you will still be punished. Even if all the gods don't exist, you haven't lost anything, because you wasted a lot of time and energy, did a lot of useless work for this belief, didn't dare to enjoy what you should, suffered what you shouldn't, even died in vain because of your belief, or because you were afraid of medical treatment or participating in jihad, and so on. Third, this statement actually assumes that the two possibilities are equal or at least similar. But in practice, the probability of these two possibilities may be quite different. If the possibility of the existence of God is close to zero, this statement is unconvincing. Therefore, for those who have already believed in God, it is actually just self-consolation. Fourth, if you don't really believe in God, but believe in God as a gamble, how do we know that God will not severely punish speculators like you? Fifth, if God exists, and God is good and just, we should not regard whether we believe in him as a necessary condition for going to hell. Just because you don't believe him, good people will go to hell. Such a god is disgusting and unworthy of our worship. Did Jesus ever exist? If he does not exist, we have nothing to say. If he exists and claims to be a god, there are three possibilities: he is a god, or he is a liar, or he is crazy. According to the virtue of Jesus described in the Bible, he can't be a liar. He didn't act like a madman. So Jesus can only be God. First of all, there is no conclusive evidence in history that Jesus ever existed. Secondly, even if Jesus existed, there are not only three possibilities, but also other possibilities. For example, it is very likely that he did not call himself God, but the record in the Bible was wrong. His virtues and actions may also be fabricated. Finally, the possibility that Jesus is a liar or a madman is not so easy to rule out. In western countries, there are many people who call themselves Christ, God and God like Jesus, and there are also many followers. Judging from the descriptions of these believers, these people don't look like liars or lunatics. So should we believe that they are all gods? If you walk in the wilderness and see a watch on the ground, you know it can't appear there naturally. It must have been made by a watchmaker. Nature is far more orderly and complicated than a watch, so nature should also have its creator, that is, God. This is the so-called watchmaker analogy. This analogy has the following loopholes: first, clockmakers need materials to make watches, while God wants to create nature from scratch. The two cannot be compared. Secondly, there are many kinds of machines. If you see a car and a radio on the beach, you don't think they are all made by a watchmaker, do you? By analogy, there are all kinds of products in nature, and there should be all kinds of designers, so should we believe in all kinds of gods? Third, if a watch is not perfect, we can infer that its maker is not perfect; Because nature is not perfect, so God is not perfect and omnipotent? Fourth, the most fatal point of this analogy is that it assumes that there are no signs of processing and design in nature, so watches will stand out in the wilderness; But it immediately assumes that nature is full of signs of processing and design, so it needs a designer just like a watch. In this way, analogy is not self-consistent. Fifth, mechanical systems are very different from natural systems (including biological systems). Just because a pile of parts can't spontaneously form a watch doesn't mean that biological macromolecules can't spontaneously form a creature. In any case, the universe is so complex that it can't be spontaneous. There must be a creator, and this creator is God. First of all, the scientific community has generally accepted that the theory of evolution can satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe, and the universe has evolved step by step from simple to complex, rather than suddenly. Secondly, if the complex universe needs a creator, then the creator who can create the complex universe must be more complicated. Then who created this more complicated creator? If this more complicated creator exists naturally, then why can't we think that the less complicated universe also exists naturally? Why should a more complex creator be stuffed out of thin air between "the universe" and "natural existence"? I used to be an atheist, but now I'm a devout believer! So what? People are different, and personal experiences are unconvincing. Throughout history, some people have changed from atheists to devout believers, some have died as atheists, and some have changed from devout believers to atheists. Can the latter also shout at you: "I used to be a devout believer, but now I am an atheist"? Isn't atheism also a religion? Before answering such a question, we must first define "religion". We generally define religion as the controlling power that believes in and worships Superman. Atheism does not believe in or worship any superhuman strength, which obviously does not belong to the usual religion. If the definition of "religion" is changed to include atheism, then all kinds of human activities such as science, politics and sports will become religions. If atheism is not a religion in a strict sense, isn't it also a belief like religion? Before answering this question, we must also find out what faith is. Faith must first have "faith". For weak atheists, they just don't believe in the existence of God, so they can't call it faith. If we want to prove that "unbelief" is also "belief", it is equivalent to saying that "not sick" is also "sick". A staunch atheist believes that God does not exist. With "faith", it is closer to a belief, but it is not entirely true. What we call "believing" generally means believing something with complete certainty without any evidence (even negative evidence), but even the strongest atheist emphasizes the importance of evidence first when discussing the existence of God. When we make judgments, we can't rely entirely on evidence, but always believe some unprovable assumptions. Even the science that values evidence most has some unprovable assumptions. For example, it assumes that the laws of physics observed by any observer are the same. However, science does not become a belief just because it believes such a hypothesis. Atheism uses as few assumptions as possible. In fact, the hypothesis of atheism can be said to be exactly the same as science. If atheism is a belief, then science has become a belief, which ordinary people can't agree with. Since you don't believe in God, doesn't life become aimless? The existence of human beings is purely accidental. He just "exists" and has no purpose in itself. But personal life can be purposeful and meaningful. Many atheists set goals for their lives and lead meaningful lives. We don't pursue happiness after death, but only happiness in this world. We don't pursue eternal life, but we can also try to leave a good mark on human society and human history. How can atheists comfort themselves when they are hit in life? Relatives, friends, pets, work, study, literature, art, meditation, sports, psychologists. Yes, we can't get comfort by believing in God. However, is it necessary to believe in falsehood just for comfort? Are atheists immoral people? It depends on how you define "morality". If, like some countries, believing in God is regarded as a kind of morality, then atheists are indeed immoral people. However, in a general sense, morality refers to the code of conduct of a specific human society. Atheists, like theists, have to follow moral principles, either for social success or for respect, or for fear of being punished by law, or just out of conscience, and are no more immoral than theists. Most atheists may follow the same moral principles as theists, but for different reasons. We follow these norms, not to please God or fear God's punishment, but because we believe that human society must have these norms to function normally. Of course, some atheists try to use their atheistic beliefs as an excuse after doing bad things; But some theists do evil on the grounds of their religious beliefs: "We must accept the following reliable teaching: Jesus Christ came to this world to save sinners. Jesus Christ showed infinite patience to those who believed in him and gained eternal life. Eternal, eternal, invisible king, the only God, whose glory will last forever. " The above is the declaration made by Jeffrey Damo, a notorious serial cannibal killer in Wisconsin, USA, in court on February 1992. Hitler is an atheist, look what he has done! Hitler was a theist at least on the surface, and he was also a Christian: "The Fuehrer let those entrusted with the final liquidation know that killing must be as humane as possible. This is consistent with his firm belief that he is carrying out God's will and purifying this evil world. Although he hates the hierarchy of the Catholic church, he still retains his good position as a Catholic ('I am a Catholic as before and will always be a Catholic'), and he keeps in mind the Catholic doctrine that Jews are murderers of God. Therefore, conscience should not have the slightest guilt about the extinction of Jews, because he is only playing the role of God's revenger-as long as this extinction has nothing to do with individuals and is not cruel. " (194 1 autumn. From John Toland's Adolf Hitler, pp507), the sentence "I am a Catholic as before, and I will always be a Catholic" is quoted from the diary of Hitler's assistant GerhardEngel in June 5438+094 1 year, which is a record of Hitler's private conversation, so it can't be regarded as propaganda, but it can better represent Hitler's real thoughts. What do you think of the charity behavior of religious people or religious institutions? All charitable acts, regardless of their motives, are commendable. But we should also pay attention to the hypocrisy of charitable acts with religious motives, such as lending for missionary purposes or investing in heaven after death. I appreciate those charitable acts that come from the heart and have no selfish motives. Is there any harm in religious belief? It hurts a lot, not only for believers, but also for others. There have been many religious wars in history, such as the Christian Crusade. Believers may argue that religious belief is not the real cause of these wars, but just an excuse. But even so, religious beliefs at least provide an excuse for "rationalization" of these wars. There have also been large-scale persecution, slaughter and ethnic cleansing caused by religious reasons in history, such as the large-scale persecution and slaughter of witches and scientific pioneers by Christianity in the Middle Ages. Even today, due to the progress of human society, the harm of religion has been greatly reduced, but it is still quite serious. Religion is still the root of disputes between countries and regions, such as the Balkan Peninsula, Northern Ireland and the Middle East, which are all inseparable from religious beliefs, and even almost all are caused by religious reasons. Since ancient times, many religious leaders have executed pagans or atheists for blasphemy. Many believers killed their children because they became atheists or married followers of other religions. Many religious believers believe in miracle therapy. There are countless examples of this. Believers are seriously ill and die because they are afraid of disease and medical treatment because of their religious beliefs, or beg for the divine power of priests and wizards. Many believers refused to receive blood transfusion for religious reasons and died. Because the Catholic church opposes any artificial contraceptive method (especially condoms), it has an unshirkable responsibility for the excessive population growth and the epidemic of AIDS. Many clinics were harassed and some doctors were murdered because some Christian groups opposed abortion. Religious belief is also a huge financial and artificial burden of human society, which wastes countless manpower, material resources and financial resources. Believers spend a lot of money to build and repair churches and temples, and waste countless hours on worship, prayer, religious ceremonies, learning scriptures and so on. The money and time could have been used for better things. Those who do bad things are not true believers, they just use religious belief as an excuse! What is a true believer? How do we know who is a true believer and who is not? Look at Christianity. There are so many factions competing with each other, attacking each other and even killing each other. Each faction claims to be a true Christian. How can we know who is real and who is fake? If even the major Christian churches, such as the Catholic Church and the Church of England, can't make each other agree on what true Christianity is, how can we atheists agree? Therefore, atheists can only take a pragmatic attitude towards this. If someone calls himself a Christian and acts on the grounds of Christian belief, we have to regard him as a Christian. Maybe some Christians distort Christian doctrine for their own benefit, but if the teaching of the Bible is so easily distorted, how can we regard it as a moral dogma? If the Bible is really God's teaching, why does God make it so easily distorted? Why not write clearly without distortion? How do you know that your understanding of the Bible has not distorted God's will? If there are different interpretations instead of unique and irrefutable interpretations of biblical texts, why should we atheists believe that one of them is true and the others are false? Therefore, if someone claims to believe in Jesus Christ and that he killed people for Jesus' sake according to the teaching of the Bible, then I'm sorry, we must call him a Christian. If religious belief is so bad, why are there so many believers? The popularity of a belief has nothing to do with whether it is correct or effective. Think about it, astrology, fortune telling, pseudoscience … are also very popular. Infectious diseases also spread easily. Believing in God is only a weakness of human nature. In many primitive tribes, religious beliefs enable their members to explain natural phenomena that they cannot understand. Even in civilized society, science has been able to explain many natural phenomena (such as natural selection to explain biological adaptability), there are still many people who are willing to believe in supernatural explanations (such as creationism). Today, religious belief not only provides an explanation of the world, but also plays a social role, allowing believers to communicate with each other and have a sense of belonging. Just because many different cultures have developed religions does not mean that God really exists? No. Even if different cultures have similar beliefs, it doesn't mean that belief is true. It may just be an instinct of human beings. If we regard religious beliefs as the product of human society, it is not surprising that they have something in common. These commonalities only play a role in stabilizing a particular society, such as obeying authority, not killing people, not stealing, and so on. There are many religions in common because they are related to each other. For example, scholars believe that the statement in the Bible that God created heaven and earth in seven days was copied from the Babylonian myth. The Ten Commandments of Moses are derived from the code of Hamraby. As we all know, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are of the same origin. In fact, most religions are very different. For example, Buddhism and Taoism have no concept of God similar to Christianity. Different religions do not agree on the true face of God. On the contrary, most religions wrongly attack other religions. America is based on Christianity! Judging from the attitudes of several important founders of the United States towards Christianity, it is hard for us to believe that the United States is based on Christianity. Benjamin Franklin wrote 1728 165438 on1October 20: "I can't imagine that the infinite heavenly father will expect or ask for our worship and praise, and I can't even imagine that he exists in the sky indefinitely." Thomas Jefferson wrote in August 1787 to Peter Karl: "Even the existence of God should be boldly questioned. Because, if God exists, he will be more in favor of rational respect than blind fear. " Thomas Jefferson wrote to W Short at 1820: "Don't mistake me for agreeing with all his (Jesus') dogmas. I'm a materialist. He's on Zock's side. He preached that repentance was an effective way to atone, while I asked for hard work to atone. In the speeches and sermons attributed to him by his biographer, I found many paragraphs full of beautiful imagination, correct morality and the most lovely and kind, but I also found so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much falsehood, deception and fraud, just like announcing that so many contradictions cannot come from the same person. So I will separate gold from dross, restore Jesus to the former, and attribute the latter to the stupidity and fraud of his apostles. Paul is the best of these liars and the first corrupter of Jesus' dogma. "Thomas Jefferson wrote to john adams on April 1823, 1 1." One day, the so-called saying that Jesus was mysteriously born in the womb of the Virgin Mary and took God as the father will be regarded as a fable, just like the saying that Minerva was born from Jupiter's brain. John adams wrote in a letter to far Van de Kamp on February 27th 18 16: "As far as I know, Christianity was and is an apocalypse. However, countless fables, stories and legends are mixed with the revelation of Judaism and Christianity, becoming the bloodiest religion in history. What's going on here? John adams also said in his letter to Thomas Jefferson: "I almost shudder at the thought of the cross, the deadliest symbol of human suffering in human history. Think about the disaster caused by this tool of suffering! "Finally, article 1776 of the Tripoli Treaty, approved by the US Senate and signed by the US President, clearly declares that the United States is not based on Christianity:" Because the United States is not based on Christianity in any sense, because it is not hostile to the laws, religions and stability of Muslims, because it has never participated in any Muslim country. Bevans's American treaties and other international agreements 1776- 1949, vol. 65438+01(pp.1070-1080)) cannot be scientifically. Science studies natural things, not supernatural things. Although science has not proved that God does not exist as a whole, it has ruled out the possibility of God's existence when explaining natural phenomena. Many proofs of the existence of God (such as thunder and lightning, the origin of species) are given by science according to the laws of nature. In fact, the scientific community has long reached a consensus that we should not introduce any supernatural concepts in scientific research and deny that natural things are influenced by any supernatural factors. So scientific research is actually atheistic, although a scientist may be a theist. There are many famous scientists who believe in God! So what? There are also many famous scientists who don't believe in God. In fact, according to a survey published in the international academic journal Nature 1998, even in the United States where theism prevails, most scientists do not believe in God, and almost all outstanding scientists do not believe in God. Only about 7% members of the American Academy of Sciences believe in God. As pointed out earlier, whether a belief is correct or not does not depend on the number of people who believe in it. Besides, unlike believers who worship religious leaders, atheists don't worship scientists. A scientist is only an expert in his research field. When he speaks in other fields, no matter how famous he is, his words have no special weight. Even if a famous scientist speaks in his research field, he must provide evidence to support it, not lip service. Scientific research does not recognize authority in essence, but only repeatable evidence that can be independently verified. Even Darwin regretted establishing the theory of evolution and believing in Christianity in his later years! This is a rumor that has long been exposed, but Christians still talk about it. The initiator of this rumor is an American nun named Hope. Shortly after Darwin's death, she claimed in a sermon in Massachusetts that she visited Darwin before his death, and Darwin confessed to her that he regretted having founded the theory of evolution. Rumors of hope from church organizations spread quickly. 1922, Henrietta, Darwin's daughter, made a statement in this regard: "Before my father died, I stood by him all the time. When he died of a serious illness, or when he got other diseases, Sister Hope was not there. I believe my father has never seen her, and she has no influence on my father's thoughts and beliefs. He never regretted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story about his confession was made up in America. The whole story is sheer nonsense. " (RonaldW。 Clark, The Survival of Charles Dai Wen: A Non-biogeography of Man and Idea, published by Beavedfield. Nicholson, 1985, PP 199) Even Einstein believed in God. Are you smarter than Einstein? Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, which is synonymous with nature, not a supernatural, personality and conscious God who manipulates human destiny. 1On March 22nd, 954, a mechanic wrote to Einstein, mentioning that he had read an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts about the authenticity of the article. Einstein wrote back on 24th, saying, "What you read about my religious belief is of course a lie, a lie that is systematically repeated. I don't believe in a personified God, and I have never denied it, but I have expressed it clearly. If there is anything in my heart that can be called religion, it is endless admiration for the world structure that our science can reveal. In a reply to a Baptist minister, Einstein said, "I don't believe in individual immortality. I think ethics is purely a matter for human beings, and there is no superhuman authority hidden behind it. " (The above excerpt is from Albert Einstein-the side of human nature) Of course, Einstein's belief in God has nothing to do with the correctness of theism. Even if religion is not completely correct, it can at least give some important enlightenment to life. What enlightenment can atheism give people? Atheism can also give many important inspirations to life, some of which may be the same as those of some religions, while others are completely different: First, pursue the truth, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Don't believe something just because you want it to be true. If you want to make your life meaningful, you should find it yourself. Four, life is only once, try to make your life valuable, don't hope for the afterlife. Don't be superstitious about external forces, don't worship authority, and believe in yourself. 6. It's better to find your conscience than to follow a certain moral code blindly. 7. Very suspicious of unusual phenomena. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is true. If you need to make a decision, find out what is easy to detect. Last but not least: 10. All beliefs must be questioned.