Nemáte pravdu, děláte nesmysly na Blog.cz

Lang-Relg (lang->mosq .. sure), West-rulers & fake church, instd removal of fake church or fake leaders, for corruption, people adopted new belief: atheism, in order to remove corrupted leaders. factually both camps are believers, but also west cannot understand viewpoints of believers, because it adopted new belief, such as concept of God (used to argue Gods existence). So that west has though problem to understand what is it belief of Muslims, about what they are speaking as of justice... Definitely west adopted belief of "atheism", the same manner as poly- or mono- teism, what is truly fake vision, even from scientific point. Not believing in God just means "believing in God, believing in set of its necessary properties, believing that these properties are contradictory to percepted logic of world, so that believing in God and its impossibility and inexistence, at once". While believing in God, in Muslim point, means searching for justice, and going (eg. by greek philosophers and their logic) until concept of justice shown in logic and words starts to make us to suppose, there is Subject for logic of thinking justice possible needed, or we have to resign on justice target. The thing is, that true belief in better world possible supports individuals trial for justice, while turning this possibility to security logically =>s existence of Subject, who is at least Gifting us to be parts in Justice materilaisation process, or maximally who is our Guarantee, that our fight has itself some results and meaning. Now we have a Subject needed, and we can call it God, but only since you needed to have material efforts against corrupted leaders and fake churches, you adopted further discussions and terms on God, which resulted in so called atheism. But see, atheism is belief that "no God is managing". Ok, but definitely you believe then that kind of "managing" is giving sense, so that you can tell yes its managed, or not its not managed. So definitely atheims is belief, that "Place of God is observed, and it is empty". This is truth about atheism, you can start from point, that simply atheism is belief. Its too - truth, without discussion possible. Disbelief is just Belief in subject and its inexistence. True "Nontheism" would be if you were just primitive, grown somewhere out of people's languages and perceptions, so that you wouldn't even known - the term - God, nor term Belief. Then, you wouldn't, absolutely, shared concepts with religion. So far, there is no way for post-religious nations to become "nontheists". There is only way back, to accept that Belief was corrupted instead of fake churches, and so way to renovation previous religions, or straight ahead way: continuation of compromised concept called atheism, which is just and only "AntiReligionism". Like this, most of self-appointed atheists are just AntiReligionists, and real few (two per million, in western) can really be Nontheists: simply not sharing understanding to what God should be, or if it is (real, good, necessary). But real nontheist needs to have stable motivation for justice in his perception of world - that means that such man just reacts on things, and percieves injustice clearly as his own pain: such individual then can understand peoples belief, as their self-lie in order to ease their fight for good, while understand peoples disbelief, as inconsciouss mismatch of terms, and consciouss problems with accepting their role in world. Usual atheist on the contrary misundertands believers, and needs to argue with them, or at least considers them to be primitives (in "this" way), while usual believer only shares different cultural and moral perceptions, and totally isn't capable to argue, because there shoudn't be nothing to discuss, in best case. Because God is for genuine believers just greekly natural, logical part of their faith for justice, which is not really so important, to be elaborated to its fake properties, which is just important as a Subject, and natural perception of second logic of people in world. Basically the antiRoyal atheists abused empty association space of believers around God, and focused believers to discuss this God as main subject, this was very efficient port to introduce specific Gods properties to discussion. While just delivering properties discussion is compromited, because in best case there is no necessity to believe, that God needs some properties. Its all faily, because most natural is Nonbelief, second most natural Belief, and most fake and sophistic liar concept is Disbelief (containing blur door to racisms, as it is not atheism, but antitheism) . God of true religion, like Muslim one, is an intuitive concept of just subject, resignation on logic analysis, in order to preserve focus of analytic capacities on humanity and justice targets, which are not only percieved as real, compared to further analysis of subject of God, which in true logic concept leads after very hard thinking to ultraskepsis, inacceptable by fatal mayority of beeings, or which under pressure of materialism and selfish objectives (mayority of "atheism" developers, except for Nietzsche) leads to abusing of logic, corrupting of tradition and introduction of history and its hateresses into logic, for most of people. Atheism can be considered compromised logic and church of misunderstoods travesty into understanding: war of so called science to just tradition and language. Active atheism (not passive, not ignorancy based) also fakes nature of theism, in order to make it appear as fake logic, before contralogic (and mostly just ideology) is introduced to war against it. But Belief is not logic, currently its just part of language and tradition, consequence of preference to justice. Neither atheism can be considered scientific. Science is neighbor of Religion, and both are tradition and subsets of language. They musn't be in war. Language is considered sacred by Nonbelievers, until there is some better tool, better true gift to spirit, which is impossible, until language is only phenomenon (by hard evidence and also intuitivelly) contrary unconsciouss materia of space. Also, our, philosphers, belief in absolute good of language contradicts to leading war for public, and if true religion is under such attack we may shield it, because religion is great piece of language work, with transparent goals, and even if logic is terminated in such language apparatus, when its objective is justice, we must understand, that its efforts of language which are pro-natural, which we shield. On contrary such terms as "democracy" and "humanitarian action" are pretty young, and already hugely compromised, very opened to lot of antipeople ideologies, pretty opened to opinion fabrication. There is for example nothing to shield on capitalism, until there is nothing to shield on using rectangle buildings to manufacture toilet paper. People should evolve any kind of organization they need, but noone has the right to call phenomenological class of people responsible of something. As there is no capitalist, because there is always industrialist, we musn't take even one step, to shield capitalism. But there is always quantums of Muslims, Christians, Mormons, who are sincer and good, so that attack on their classification roots shall be considered attack on these quants of people, for example as covert action to usurp their traditional property, as land, sources, arts. Conclusion: resignation to logic in specific shared areas of religion logic is not to be mismatched with trawesting logic, so far its basement of any efficient pro-natural and pro-life-conservation semilogical concept, while attacks on religion, faith or tradition led by assymetrical materialistic entity (like Capitalist State against Islam or Marxistic state, or Marxistic state against Church) is nothing to back, because its religion targetting is not philosophical, and only travests its target using ideological covert into public hatred target. When Capitalist leads religionistic discussion against anything, there is highest conviction, that this anything is sacred, and capitalism abuses public by implementing archetypal hatress. At moment I have no example, how Capitalist state could be sacred, and who should attack it and how, to show such concept sacred. In case of Marxism its easier: DPRK is sacred, for philosopher, until war against it lead on all precieved layers of community includes "best morality" for who achieves DPRK with all its people to be isolated absolutely, and marked very black. If most of community attacks someone, there is real morality in who backs this one. In todays world, west is always percieved as community, while its "enemies" (big or small sets of nations) are not considered to be at least "voice of opinion". But in real, west lacks identity itself, it destroys identity building opportunities to its people, it conspires to fake identities of its "enemies", and mostly it is not a real community, compared to communities with fake, thin identity west prepared. West enemy is always deeply community. West terms are always deeply travesty. West wouldn't made any change, if it forbidden innovation, freedom of speech or progress. Actually west uses all middles to lead its people out of innovation, out of freedom, out of initiative, out of selfrealization, out of art skills, out of continuous tradition. West adopted numeric failure, and considers it to be its God, progress and freedom. West demonstrates, what it means to indefinitelly divide by zero.