znam tu pricu o zlatnom dobu:) postoji i u grckoj mitologiji. isto se prica i o prvim krscanima i njihovoj zajednici... nisam detaljnije proucavao istocnjacke religije, ali imam neki osjecaj da i je i kod njih postojalo neko takvo zlatno vrijeme. eto, i komunizam bi u teoriji trebao biti to zlatno doba.Danko_Bananko wrote: Sto naravno nije tacno - bar za vrijeme Muhammeda s.a.w.s i dvojice prvih halifa religijski ideali su u potpunosti zazivjeli medju narodima koji su tad pripadali islamskoj drzavi.
Jos jedan interesantan podatak - malo kasnije od perioda koje gore napomenuh, za vrijeme halife Omera ibn Abdul Aziza u drzavi koja se tad prostirala haman na pola dunjaluka, nije bilo covjeka kojem bi se zbog siromastva mogao dati zekat.
Naime, svi su bili dovoljno imucni da ga sami daju
Ateizam
-
Gost123
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 05/06/2006 12:03
#26
-
Danko_Bananko
- Posts: 862
- Joined: 23/01/2007 20:34
#27
Slozio bih se sa forumashom da nema smisla raspravljati o komunizmu jer je to proslo svrseno vrijeme.Gost123 wrote:znam tu pricu o zlatnom dobu:) postoji i u grckoj mitologiji. isto se prica i o prvim krscanima i njihovoj zajednici... nisam detaljnije proucavao istocnjacke religije, ali imam neki osjecaj da i je i kod njih postojalo neko takvo zlatno vrijeme. eto, i komunizam bi u teoriji trebao biti to zlatno doba.Danko_Bananko wrote: Sto naravno nije tacno - bar za vrijeme Muhammeda s.a.w.s i dvojice prvih halifa religijski ideali su u potpunosti zazivjeli medju narodima koji su tad pripadali islamskoj drzavi.
Jos jedan interesantan podatak - malo kasnije od perioda koje gore napomenuh, za vrijeme halife Omera ibn Abdul Aziza u drzavi koja se tad prostirala haman na pola dunjaluka, nije bilo covjeka kojem bi se zbog siromastva mogao dati zekat.
Naime, svi su bili dovoljno imucni da ga sami daju
Ipak bih napomenuo da nema podatka da je on ikada idealno zazivio na nekom mjestu, i u neko vrijeme, nit da je ikad bio u nekom zlatnom dobu.
Cak je onih zadnjih godina Jugoslavije bio mozda najzlatnije ikad, ali taj period je ionako imao vrlo malo dodirnih sa komunizmom kakav je u startu zamisljen.
Za moje "zlatno doba" ipak postoje odredjeni historijski podaci, i lahko se provjeri istinitost istih.
, za razliku od grcke mitologije-
NIN
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: 15/02/2006 20:18
- Location: Via Lactea, Orion Arm
#28
Moj Bananko, jak si lik!Danko_Bananko wrote:Za moje "zlatno doba" ipak postoje odredjeni historijski podaci, i lahko se provjeri istinitost istih.
Gost je vjerovatno mislio na Starogrcku civilizaciju a ti odmah bukvalno, i nek' je vala samo islam imao svoje zlatno doba, kako te naucise.
Pozdrav...
-
Danko_Bananko
- Posts: 862
- Joined: 23/01/2007 20:34
#29
a jesi me provalila, nema mi nego se sakrit sad negdjeNIN wrote:Moj Bananko, jak si lik!Danko_Bananko wrote:Za moje "zlatno doba" ipak postoje odredjeni historijski podaci, i lahko se provjeri istinitost istih.
Gost je vjerovatno mislio na Starogrcku civilizaciju a ti odmah bukvalno, i nek' je vala samo islam imao svoje zlatno doba, kako te naucise.
Pozdrav...
svaki period ima svoje zlatno doba, ninuska, i nacizam ga je imao..sad kol'ko je koje zlatno, o tom drugom prilikomnek' je vala samo islam imao svoje zlatno doba, kako te naucise.
Mahsuz pozdrav i tebi
-
Abu FEED el-Castro
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: 19/04/2006 11:41
- Location: BH Teheran
#30
Ateizam treba zabranit i sljedbenike te religije protjerat u nepoznato... 
Pozz.
Pozz.
-
NIN
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: 15/02/2006 20:18
- Location: Via Lactea, Orion Arm
#33
Science explains everything
Atheists argue that because everything in the universe can be explained in a satisfactory way without using God as part of the explanation, then there is no point in saying that God exists.
Occam's Razor
The argument is based on a philosophical idea called Occam's Razor, popularised by William of Occam in the 14th century.
In Latin it goes Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitateor in English... "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".
This is usually simplified to say that the simplest answer is the best answer.
The Atheist and Occam's Razor
So, says the atheist, since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Does this prove God doesn't exist?
No it doesn't. It merely proves that the assumption that God exists isn't needed, and so can be abandoned.
What would William have said?
William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.
But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available, and thus very necessary.
What William would think if he lived now is another matter...
Atheists argue that because everything in the universe can be explained in a satisfactory way without using God as part of the explanation, then there is no point in saying that God exists.
Occam's Razor
The argument is based on a philosophical idea called Occam's Razor, popularised by William of Occam in the 14th century.
In Latin it goes Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitateor in English... "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".
This is usually simplified to say that the simplest answer is the best answer.
The Atheist and Occam's Razor
So, says the atheist, since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Does this prove God doesn't exist?
No it doesn't. It merely proves that the assumption that God exists isn't needed, and so can be abandoned.
What would William have said?
William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.
But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available, and thus very necessary.
What William would think if he lived now is another matter...
-
NIN
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: 15/02/2006 20:18
- Location: Via Lactea, Orion Arm
#34
Weakness of the proofs that God Exists
There are a number of traditional ways of proving that God exists. None of them convince atheists. Here they are:
The Argument from Design
The universe is such a beautiful and orderly thing that it must have been designed. Only God could have designed it. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist.
Actually the universe is not particularly beautiful and orderly. And even if it was, why should there be a designer? And modern science shows that most of the natural things we think of as designed are just the products of processes like evolution.
The "Ontological" Argument
We think of God as a perfect being. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect. God is perfect, therefore God exists.
But the Atheist replies:
Most atheists think this argument is so feeble they don't bother dealing with it.
Professional philosophers usually reject it on the grounds that existence is not a property of beings.
The First Cause Argument
Everything that happens has a cause. Therefore the universe must have had a cause. That cause must have been God. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist in order to have caused it to exist.
The Atheist replies:
Then what caused God? (And what caused the cause of God, and so on.) And if God didn't need a cause, then maybe the universe didn't need a cause either. If God was already perfect before he created the universe, why did he create it? How did it` benefit him? Why would he bother? And if the universe was caused, perhaps something other than God caused it? Sorry, but I'm still not convinced.
Note for Philosophers
The arguments and counter-arguments are presented here in a vastly over-simplified way. Anyone interested in the meat of the debate should look in a philosophy text book.
There are a number of traditional ways of proving that God exists. None of them convince atheists. Here they are:
The Argument from Design
The universe is such a beautiful and orderly thing that it must have been designed. Only God could have designed it. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist.
Actually the universe is not particularly beautiful and orderly. And even if it was, why should there be a designer? And modern science shows that most of the natural things we think of as designed are just the products of processes like evolution.
The "Ontological" Argument
We think of God as a perfect being. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect. God is perfect, therefore God exists.
But the Atheist replies:
Most atheists think this argument is so feeble they don't bother dealing with it.
Professional philosophers usually reject it on the grounds that existence is not a property of beings.
The First Cause Argument
Everything that happens has a cause. Therefore the universe must have had a cause. That cause must have been God. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist in order to have caused it to exist.
The Atheist replies:
Then what caused God? (And what caused the cause of God, and so on.) And if God didn't need a cause, then maybe the universe didn't need a cause either. If God was already perfect before he created the universe, why did he create it? How did it` benefit him? Why would he bother? And if the universe was caused, perhaps something other than God caused it? Sorry, but I'm still not convinced.
Note for Philosophers
The arguments and counter-arguments are presented here in a vastly over-simplified way. Anyone interested in the meat of the debate should look in a philosophy text book.
-
biscanka84
- Posts: 343
- Joined: 20/12/2006 10:03
#35
Onda ne znam sta imamo uopste diskutovat o njima kad znamo da su u BIH neznatna manjinaregistrovan wrote:Dok su ateisti u manjini, sve je super. Opasno je samo kada postanu vecina.
-
NIN
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: 15/02/2006 20:18
- Location: Via Lactea, Orion Arm
#36
Psychological Explanations of Religon
Psychologists have long been fascinated by religion as something that exists in all societies. They ask whether 'religion' is actually a name given to various psychological drives, rather than a response to the existence of God or gods. Such a belief is clearly atheistic.
Religion, to the common man, is a
"system of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here."
Freud, Civilization and its Discontents
Religion comes from Emotions
Human beings believe in God because they want:
-A father figure to protect them from this frightening world,
-Someone who gives their lives meaning and purpose,
-Something that stops death being the end,
-To believe that they are an important part of the universe, and that some component of the universe (God) cares for and respects them.
These beliefs are strongly held because they enable human beings to cope with some of their most basic fears.
Even if this is true (which it probably is) this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but merely that we are psychologically likely to believe in God whether or not he exists. Atheists argue that since religion is just a psychological fantasy, human beings should abandon it so that they can grow to respond appropriately to deal with the world as it is.
Sigmund Freud tackled religion in great detail and had several ideas about it. One of his theories was that religion stems from the individual's experience of having being a helpless baby totally dependent on its parents. The infant sees its parents as all-powerful beings who show it great love and satisfy all its needs. This experience is almost identical to the way human beings portray their relationship with God.
Freud also suggested that childhood experiences caused people to have very complex feelings about their parents and themselves, and religion and religious rituals provide a respectable mechanism for working these out.
Freud also described religion as a mass-delusion that reshaped reality to provide a certainty of happiness and a protection from suffering.
Cika Freud davno stavi tacku tako sto proniknu u psiholoske korjene religijskih osjecaja u nasoj vrsti.
Pozdrav...
Psychologists have long been fascinated by religion as something that exists in all societies. They ask whether 'religion' is actually a name given to various psychological drives, rather than a response to the existence of God or gods. Such a belief is clearly atheistic.
Religion, to the common man, is a
"system of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here."
Freud, Civilization and its Discontents
Religion comes from Emotions
Human beings believe in God because they want:
-A father figure to protect them from this frightening world,
-Someone who gives their lives meaning and purpose,
-Something that stops death being the end,
-To believe that they are an important part of the universe, and that some component of the universe (God) cares for and respects them.
These beliefs are strongly held because they enable human beings to cope with some of their most basic fears.
Even if this is true (which it probably is) this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but merely that we are psychologically likely to believe in God whether or not he exists. Atheists argue that since religion is just a psychological fantasy, human beings should abandon it so that they can grow to respond appropriately to deal with the world as it is.
Sigmund Freud tackled religion in great detail and had several ideas about it. One of his theories was that religion stems from the individual's experience of having being a helpless baby totally dependent on its parents. The infant sees its parents as all-powerful beings who show it great love and satisfy all its needs. This experience is almost identical to the way human beings portray their relationship with God.
Freud also suggested that childhood experiences caused people to have very complex feelings about their parents and themselves, and religion and religious rituals provide a respectable mechanism for working these out.
Freud also described religion as a mass-delusion that reshaped reality to provide a certainty of happiness and a protection from suffering.
Cika Freud davno stavi tacku tako sto proniknu u psiholoske korjene religijskih osjecaja u nasoj vrsti.
Pozdrav...
-
Maksim
- Posts: 931
- Joined: 18/11/2006 03:25
- Location: Bec, Austrija
- Contact:
#37
Izmedju 10 i 12 % nije bas "neznatna" (dje nadje ovaj izraz) manjinabiscanka84 wrote:Onda ne znam sta imamo uopste diskutovat o njima kad znamo da su u BIH neznatna manjinaregistrovan wrote:Dok su ateisti u manjini, sve je super. Opasno je samo kada postanu vecina.
-
uozo
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: 20/05/2006 01:34
#38
Religija je samo ocajnicki pokusaj covjeka da objasni stvari koje ne shvata i vjerovatno nikada nece shvatiti. Takodje je jos ocajnickiji pokusaj da lakse preboli cinjenicu da, kao i svako drugo zivo bice ima svoj zivotni vijek, sa cijim se krajem zavrsava jedna tako slatka i privlacna stvar koja se naziva zivotom.
Prvo je covjek vjerovao u vatru, sunce, grom ili mjesec, jer nije znao zasto su oni tu, jer nije znao kako funkcionisu. Mozda je to bila i najbolja vrsta religije koja je postojala dok se neko nije dosjetio da kreira stvroitelja svega sto postoji i naravno okarakterise ga kao nesto sto mi ne mozemo da shvatimo i nikada necemo moci. Nesto sto je stvorilo beskonacni univerzum samo da bi nase jadne, male, kratke zivote pretvorilo u neku vrstu trajnog ispita za neki drugi zivot.
Covjek se naravno uvijek plasio onoga sta ne razumije, isto kao sto se moje ribice u akvarijumu plase kad ga cistim i vjerovatno instiktivno osjecaju da je to neizbjezna prirodna pojava poput cunamija ili zemljotresa kod nas ljudi. Vjerovatno im instikt kaze, da je ruka koja im ubaci hranu ujutru neka vrsta boga. Sta nas razlikuje od ostalih zivih bica? Svijest? Sposobnost razmisljanja? Sta je ustvari to? Da li je stvarno evolucija covjeka, od jednog primitivnog bica pocela onda kada je uzeo neku alatku u ruke i sa njome ubio plijen? Neke stvari necemo nikada shvatiti, i zbog toga ce sama religija jos dugo postojati. Postojace dok ne shvatamo, a skoro krajnje vrijeme je da pocnemo da shvatamo da ustvari nismo mi ti koji smo u univerzumu vazni, vec sama planeta. To sto se na nasoj planeti, igrom slucaja, stvorila perfektna atmosfera za razvoj zivota, uzrok je, da smo se namnozili i maltene poput nekih parazita je unistavamo. Samo sto, ako nas planeta i unisti ona nece prestati da postoji.
Prvo je covjek vjerovao u vatru, sunce, grom ili mjesec, jer nije znao zasto su oni tu, jer nije znao kako funkcionisu. Mozda je to bila i najbolja vrsta religije koja je postojala dok se neko nije dosjetio da kreira stvroitelja svega sto postoji i naravno okarakterise ga kao nesto sto mi ne mozemo da shvatimo i nikada necemo moci. Nesto sto je stvorilo beskonacni univerzum samo da bi nase jadne, male, kratke zivote pretvorilo u neku vrstu trajnog ispita za neki drugi zivot.
Covjek se naravno uvijek plasio onoga sta ne razumije, isto kao sto se moje ribice u akvarijumu plase kad ga cistim i vjerovatno instiktivno osjecaju da je to neizbjezna prirodna pojava poput cunamija ili zemljotresa kod nas ljudi. Vjerovatno im instikt kaze, da je ruka koja im ubaci hranu ujutru neka vrsta boga. Sta nas razlikuje od ostalih zivih bica? Svijest? Sposobnost razmisljanja? Sta je ustvari to? Da li je stvarno evolucija covjeka, od jednog primitivnog bica pocela onda kada je uzeo neku alatku u ruke i sa njome ubio plijen? Neke stvari necemo nikada shvatiti, i zbog toga ce sama religija jos dugo postojati. Postojace dok ne shvatamo, a skoro krajnje vrijeme je da pocnemo da shvatamo da ustvari nismo mi ti koji smo u univerzumu vazni, vec sama planeta. To sto se na nasoj planeti, igrom slucaja, stvorila perfektna atmosfera za razvoj zivota, uzrok je, da smo se namnozili i maltene poput nekih parazita je unistavamo. Samo sto, ako nas planeta i unisti ona nece prestati da postoji.
-
PITARKA_SA
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: 12/06/2005 16:13
- Location: rajvosa
#40
vidim prozivate me ,pa reko da se javim samo
-
biscanka84
- Posts: 343
- Joined: 20/12/2006 10:03
#42
Ta statistika je prije rata druze,prije rata..i takvi su bili "ateisti" vecinom zbog "bratstva i jedinstva".Danas je pola njih vraceno u torove(citaj;islam,pravoslavlje,katolicizam)Maksim wrote:Izmedju 10 i 12 % nije bas "neznatna" (dje nadje ovaj izraz) manjinabiscanka84 wrote:Onda ne znam sta imamo uopste diskutovat o njima kad znamo da su u BIH neznatna manjinaregistrovan wrote:Dok su ateisti u manjini, sve je super. Opasno je samo kada postanu vecina.
i da,sve ispod 20% je neznatno
-
PITARKA_SA
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: 12/06/2005 16:13
- Location: rajvosa
#43
da,mnogo je onih sto su prije rata bili ateisti a sada postadose vijernici..znaci,kako godine idu,rezim se mjenja.. .tako i oni svoje dresove..pa to mi je zalosnije nego bilo sta
i nije bas tako da su svi bili prije rata ateisti jer ih je Tito tjerao na to..
ima i nas koji smo to sto jesmo,zbog sebe samih i nemjenjamo dresove i ako,priznajem,bolje bi prosla u zivotu da ga promjenim.
ali dzaba ..ja sam ja
i nije bas tako da su svi bili prije rata ateisti jer ih je Tito tjerao na to..
ima i nas koji smo to sto jesmo,zbog sebe samih i nemjenjamo dresove i ako,priznajem,bolje bi prosla u zivotu da ga promjenim.
ali dzaba ..ja sam ja
-
vatrogasac
- Posts: 10044
- Joined: 24/04/2006 21:33
#44
...mnogi su bili ateisti u tom sistemu zbog neinformiranosti i stigme zaostalosti, zatucanosti koju je taj sistem volio stavljati kao atribut ispred vjere......ako su se neki informisali i razbili predrasude da li su trebali i dalje slijediti što se kosi sa novim spoznajama.....?....da li su zbog toga manje karakterne osobe...?....zaboravlja se da je bilo dosta ljudi koji u ta vremena nisu se javno deklarisali kao vjernici zbog pogodnosti koje je davala crvena partijska knjižica dok su tajno i klanjali i djecu, sunetili ili krstili ili...ili...danas nose možda drugačije knjižice zbog drugih pogodnosti....stranke i partije su interesne grupe dok je vjera ubjeđenje....i ne vidim uputnim poistovjećivati....u kontekstu priče o dresovima.....PITARKA_SA wrote:da,mnogo je onih sto su prije rata bili ateisti a sada postadose vijernici..znaci,kako godine idu,rezim se mjenja.. .tako i oni svoje dresove..pa to mi je zalosnije nego bilo sta
i nije bas tako da su svi bili prije rata ateisti jer ih je Tito tjerao na to..
ima i nas koji smo to sto jesmo,zbog sebe samih i nemjenjamo dresove i ako,priznajem,bolje bi prosla u zivotu da ga promjenim.
ali dzaba ..ja sam ja
-
digger
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: 03/12/2004 02:10
- Location: blizina Toronta
#46
Komunisti su vjernici. Problem je mozda simantika u rijeci 'vjernik' koja kod nas oznacava religioznu osobu.biscanka84 wrote:....a da bi bio komunista..moras negirati postojanje Boga tako da komunisti ne mogu biti vjerniciMože li balkanski vjernik biti komunista ili barem socijaldemokrata?
Religiozna osoba vjeruje u boga, nekog savrsenog i svemoguceg 'bica' ili vec cega, nekoga koga se boji, postuje, cijeni, 'ponavlja' svaku njegovu 'rijec'... ukratko, svoju volju podredjuje bogu.
Komunizam je slican jer je baziran na vjeri u nesto sto nikada nije postojalo: nesto sto mi treba da zamisljamo. Kao religiozni raj. U toj vjeri postoji par vodja koji su dali svoje 'objave' (Marks, Engels, Lenjin, Tito) koje su se proucavale do u zapetu, gdje se detalji istih primjenjuju bez pogovora, i gdje postoje pravila—ma da ukradena iz Biblije tj. skoro svih 10 zapovijesti—kojih se treba drzati. Uz objave dolaze 'hadisi' koji sa toplinom oko srca prepricavaju detalje zivota i djela gornjih i njihovih vjernih slijedbenika, sta su rekli i sta su time mislili, ili prica kako su se obicni ljudi 'preko noci' pomjenili i prihvatili komunizam.
U oba slucaj, slobodna volja se stavlja pod jaram organizovane volje koja ustvari sluzi vecini drustva. Znaci, biti individualac nije ni pozeljno a ni cijenjeno. Biti ateista u nekakvoj Saudi Arabiji ili ne vjerovati u komunizam u Sjevernoj Koreji nikako ne ide u korist pojedincu. Naprotiv.
-
digger
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: 03/12/2004 02:10
- Location: blizina Toronta
#47
Ne znam zasto se sjetih prijatelja koji je imao obicaj da kaze: Kako mozes tako nesto reci i ostati ziv?vatrogasac wrote:...mnogi su bili ateisti u tom sistemu zbog neinformiranosti i stigme zaostalosti, zatucanosti koju je taj sistem volio stavljati kao atribut ispred vjere...
Po tvojoj @vatrogasac, svi mi moramo izabrati odredjenu 'stranu' u zivotu. Nesto kao fakultet na koji se treba upisati?
-
Gost123
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 05/06/2006 12:03
#48
kakvu opasnost bi ocekivao po svoj zivotni stil i svoju zivotnu filozofiju kad bi ateisti bili vecina? eto ameri su 75% deklarirani krscani, pogledaj postotke i u drugim zemljama, u arapskim su gotovo svi muslimani itd... sto bi postalo gore, po tvom misljenju, kad bi ateista bilo primjerice 50ak %?registrovan wrote:Dok su ateisti u manjini, sve je super. Opasno je samo kada postanu vecina.
-
digger
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: 03/12/2004 02:10
- Location: blizina Toronta
#49
Mogao bi se bog naljutiti... Jezim na samu pomisao oko ponavljanja Sodome i Gomore...Gost123 wrote:kakvu opasnost bi ocekivao po svoj zivotni stil i svoju zivotnu filozofiju kad bi ateisti bili vecina? eto ameri su 75% deklarirani krscani, pogledaj postotke i u drugim zemljama, u arapskim su gotovo svi muslimani itd... sto bi postalo gore, po tvom misljenju, kad bi ateista bilo primjerice 50ak %?
-
Kralj Tvrtko XXVIII
- Posts: 562
- Joined: 11/02/2007 16:03
#50
Darvinova teorija evolucije 1859. god. Darvin izdaje knjigu koja se zove Osnova vrsta, a koja se bavi prirodnim zakonima tj. zakonom evolucije. Ova teorija tvrdi da je pradjed čovječanstva ameba jednoćelijski organizam koja je živjela u vlažnoj sredini prije mnogo miliona godina. Majmun je jedna faza kroz koje je prošao čovjek. Ova teorija je u potpunosti izbrisala vjersku svijest u Europi i dovela do širenja ateizma. Europsko društvo se pripremalo da zada posljednji udarac vjeri i crkvi, ovome su pomogle raznorazne teorije poput Marxove (Karl Marx je bio jevrej) koji je historiju protumačio materijalistički, vjeru je smatrao narodnim izišljotinama, zatim Frojdova (takođe jevrej) teorija koji historiju tumači kroz sexualnost, čak tvrdi da prvi dodir sexualnosti kad djete prvi put bude dojeno dodirujući svoju majku. Zatim Ničeova teorija koja tvrdi da je Bog umro, a da ga superman (superčovjek) treba naslijediti.
Ateizam je jedna od cionistickih podvala.
Ateizam je jedna od cionistickih podvala.