Atheism

Atheism is gaining ground, and its mass spread to all impresses. It is no longer the privilege of an enlightened minority, but it expresses its
common standard of society’s strata. A whole civilization consciously built on God’s rejection, more specifically, to deny any dependence on extraterrestrial reality. Science does not need the hypothesis of God. And on the other hand, theoretically, either God is not omnipotent because He does not remove evil, or if He does not want to remove it, He is not loving.
Atheism, thus built on denial, has none own metaphysical content, no constructive philosophy. Rarely, it is usually announced explicitly; its predominant, democratically widespread form is formless practical atheism. The philosophical denial came only in the second round to justify the attitude of e and provided an alibi. His reasons are never and cannot be genuinely rational because they would not survive; they are empirical, essentially practical, and pragmatic. This fact explains that the problem ceased to interest a person; more he cares about politics or economics, and religious faith no longer matters to him does not say. This attitude is reinforced by the often justified distrust of philosophers who, with their skepticism, and betray their social function.
St. Paul knew well what he was doing when he concentrated his sermon on what immediately provoked a violent reaction of the reasoning reason. For human thought, the incarnation will always be folly and outrage. This thinking by its historical critique Vladimir Soloviev – Epochs of spiritual life demythologizes, distinguishes between the historical layman and Christ dogmatic faith statements. The archaic state of knowledge of the past arouses every scientist’s distrust today and makes him less willing to consider the alleged “revelation.” There is no certainty whether On an event happened, and the truth, hidden in the centuries, is for contemporary actualism, either way, she is unacceptable. It is a need to distinguish verifiable facts and texts that are clearly based on myth. It is inconceivable, even insulting, that God enters time and entrusts its truth to a handful of suspicious disciples and the fragile transmission of several texts written twenty centuries ago. Jesus’ life then appears as an anecdotal event without any guarantee of objectivity. How can it be, historians hardly the captured fact will hit the heart of a man from the streets of the 20th century? How can an event fixed in time and space claim eternal value, the authority of God, and the broad reach for salvation
every person? To the critical mind, this is monstrous disproportionate,  even unbearable. Man Jesus could in Pales quite well and exist well. Nor does it seem unacceptable so the deification of man Jesus by his disciples, rather than the humanization God. Moral ideal, a philosophical concept, maybe extremely, eventually get the title of the divine. Still, the philosopher rejects the dialogue between
man and God-man, rejects God, who speaks as a man, a God who has a human face. So it disintegrates into dust the apostolic authority of the witnesses and with it the authority of Scripture. Due to the lack of listeners, it is more than ever a voice that screams.
A person who claims to be God is unacceptable to the Jews, a God who is becoming a man is an outrage to the Greeks. The Old Testament knows God, but does not see the idea of ​​God and; Greek mysteries and knew a giant from a suffering god, but he did not know a God. The New Testament reveals both. Atheism is explained by the simple fact that God does not impose on anyone and that his existence is not immediately evident to all. In my mind, religious faith is reduced. Vladimir Soloviev – The Epoch of Spiritual Life for exploitation, theft, or compensation. But go beyond this too easy demagoguery, and criticism will come across as real difficulty. It is not indifferent; it is our consideration not interested. The most surprising is the existence of a conscious atheist – him, even her possibility. Varnish, is it possible to be an atheist?
The word atheism with its private “a” denies “theism,” denies God. So the real problem is to show how it is actually possible to do, and clarify what is rejected, varnish atheism before he denies it. Does he scientifically define the “God complex”? The whole question. But at most, it is a negation of a certain school theology, an anthropomorphic and human idea of ​​God. It does not transcend the mortal realm in any way and does not affect God and himself. On the contrary, philosophically speaking, it is not possible to deny one thing without affirming another. When God is rejected, what proves places about him? If it is a protoplasm, then it must be admitted that this is a more problematic hypothesis than a simple and straightforward idea.
About God, the Creator.

To deny and not to know are two very different processes of reason.
The agnostic says nothing, a particular nothing about me. On the contrary, it can be denied to only proven errors or obvious impossibility. Atheism, he assumes that God is obviously impossible. But science teaches us the greatest caution in hypothetical courts and especially in considering what is impossible. The line between possible and impossible is continuously moving, so it is not known precisely where to place it. And what if the science of tomorrow proved that atheism is impossible deception, unsustainable ignorance, the survival of the scientist darker than the alleged “darkness” of the Middle Ages? Such a sharp turn of the intellect will certainly not be a matter of those days. But the apparent non-existence of a sufficiently consistent and constructive atheistic philosophy forces academic atheism in its Part one – Meetings in the last forms, to s situate over the problem of God. Right at the beginning of the reflection, not at the end, he puts a cheap, simplified, and uncritical postulate that the existence of God and is no longer a philosophical problem. 2 There is no such simplistic atheism, seizing the masses the brain of philosophers and does not require any intellectual activity. He unobtrusively identifies with the historical situation and builds as a consequence of political and economic conditions. Take it for and appropriates all efforts against hunger, war, injustice. This makes it all the easier for the official religion, compromised by a connection to an apparent order, to share its fate and is swept about out of the way. After all, God is not denied by himself. “She doesn’t “For priests and sparrows,” Heine said; they are passionately denied just God’s presence in the world, God’s rooting in the human.
This negation is facilitated by God himself, for it manifests itself, but does not prove. Empirically speaking, it is evident that one can find a person and even feel a burning love for him without would need gods, so at least at a glance, the more a person is a person, the less religious he is and the more he can to feel the only architect of his destiny and the master of history. In extreme cases, atheism no longer appears as a random side effect of human destiny but becomes a fundamental pillar for Marxist doctrine.