Which religion do you follow?

[Batavia]

I doubt that there is a god, who created life on earth or the whole universe.
But maybe there is someting, some powers who are watching us and maybe help us when we are doing good.
Maybe that's wishful thinking, but I think it could be possible.

[capocannoniere]

Estudiantes de La Plata

[jouissances]

Im catholic

[KirillMazur]

Scientific atheism.
Atheism, the belief in the absence of God, is as unfounded a theory as the belief in his presence, imo. And even more stupid from a logical point of view. The meaning of scientific atheism is not in the denial of the intangible (at every point in the development of scientific knowledge), but in the refusal to discuss what has no proven influence on the material world.
That is, from the point of view of a scientific atheist, the material world is not a constant, but a sphere that gradually expands as knowledge accumulates. In which there are explainable and inexplicable (but also material in nature) phenomena. A scientific atheist does not deny God, he simply refuses to talk about his existence until there is proven influence of this God on the material world. Or until the material world expands to the boundaries where these very manifestations will be noticed.

For ex. radiation existed 500 years ago, but a materialist with the level of knowledge of that era would classify it as an intangible phenomenon in any case.

A scientific atheist is not a conventional agnostic who proceeds from the principle “maybe he exists, maybe he doesn’t". This principle is more like “I have no position on this issue, there is not enough information yet".

[Melkiirs]

Scientific atheism.
Atheism, the belief in the absence of God, is as unfounded a theory as the belief in his presence, imo. And even more stupid from a logical point of view. The meaning of scientific atheism is not in the denial of the intangible (at every point in the development of scientific knowledge), but in the refusal to discuss what has no proven influence on the material world.
That is, from the point of view of a scientific atheist, the material world is not a constant, but a sphere that gradually expands as knowledge accumulates. In which there are explainable and inexplicable (but also material in nature) phenomena. A scientific atheist does not deny God, he simply refuses to talk about his existence until there is proven influence of this God on the material world. Or until the material world expands to the boundaries where these very manifestations will be noticed.

For ex. radiation existed 500 years ago, but a materialist with the level of knowledge of that era would classify it as an intangible phenomenon in any case.

A scientific atheist is not a conventional agnostic who proceeds from the principle “maybe he exists, maybe he doesn’t". This principle is more like “I have no position on this issue, there is not enough information yet".

Scientific atheism sounds like a form of weak or negative atheism. Accepting disbelief as the default position and that belief can be rejected based on lack of evidence. Strong or positive atheists are confident in absence of deity even if it cannot be explicitly proven. Agnostics are inclined to belief but are conflicted as you indicated.

What distinguishes Marxist–Leninist scientific atheism from what is known as weak or negative atheism?

[Loki]

Scientific atheism.
Atheism, the belief in the absence of God, is as unfounded a theory as the belief in his presence, imo. And even more stupid from a logical point of view. The meaning of scientific atheism is not in the denial of the intangible (at every point in the development of scientific knowledge), but in the refusal to discuss what has no proven influence on the material world.
That is, from the point of view of a scientific atheist, the material world is not a constant, but a sphere that gradually expands as knowledge accumulates. In which there are explainable and inexplicable (but also material in nature) phenomena. A scientific atheist does not deny God, he simply refuses to talk about his existence until there is proven influence of this God on the material world. Or until the material world expands to the boundaries where these very manifestations will be noticed.

For ex. radiation existed 500 years ago, but a materialist with the level of knowledge of that era would classify it as an intangible phenomenon in any case.

A scientific atheist is not a conventional agnostic who proceeds from the principle “maybe he exists, maybe he doesn’t". This principle is more like “I have no position on this issue, there is not enough information yet".

Actually, it has been 2000 years now since God has come to earth in human form, to introduce himself to his creation. But many didn't recognize him. To those who did, he changed their whole world, gave them peace, joy and love -- so much that cannot be obtained in any other way. That's why it was no problem for his disciples to gladly accept death penalties and torture because of their faith in him.

The Word Became Flesh (Gospel of John chapter 1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Loki]

Scientific atheism sounds like a form of weak or negative atheism. Accepting disbelief as the default position and that belief can be rejected based on lack of evidence. Strong or positive atheists are confident in absence of deity even if it cannot be explicitly proven. Agnostics are inclined to belief but are conflicted as you indicated.

What distinguishes Marxist–Leninist scientific atheism from what is known as weak or negative atheism?

You are a person of peace. I should tell you about the treasure I found in Jesus sometime -- something which you can also have.

[Ugo]

I am a very sinful Christian, Orthodox

[KirillMazur]

Actually, it has been 2000 years now since God has come to earth in human form, to introduce himself to his creation. But many didn't recognize him. To those who did, he changed their whole world, gave them peace, joy and love -- so much that cannot be obtained in any other way. That's why it was no problem for his disciples to gladly accept death penalties and torture because of their faith in him.

There are no 100% atheists - any soldier sitting in a trench with bullets whistling above him always believes in God. No dialectical materialism or any other scientific method will save him from an artillery shell falling on his head, but God can help 50/50.

[Mortimer]

Traditional Roman Catholicism + Eastern Orthodoxy + Protestant type Israeli Christianity

Im member here https://www.facebook.com/israel.pochtar

But also here

https://www.facebook.com/knightsrepublic