Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 433. (Read 901367 times)

I would agree with this, but the distinction is that you're assigning the label of religion to their behavior, not their belief. There are no prescribed behaviors associated with atheism, only the one belief, so to the extent any atheist displays any patterns you associate with a religious fervency, it is coincidental to their belief, not caused by it, because being atheist doesn't necessitate any behaviors with regards to any religion or its adherents.

Somebody who knows about Islam or Christianity, and from these believes that God exists, but doesn't follow any of the formal religions devotedly, but rather, simply says that he believes in God, and then goes on with his daily life without considering the finer aspects of either religion, he probably is not a religious person regarding these religions.

It has to do with the extent or devotion.

Some folks in this forum adamantly proclaim that they are atheists and that Christians or Muslims are nut jobs. These people seem pretty devoted to atheism. Perhaps it is a religion for them while not for others.

There is no difference between the belief in the nonexistence of god and the belief in any of the things I just listed. They're all just beliefs. Since none of them fit the dictionary definition, none of them are religions.

All the definitions fit one way or another.

Somebody who knows about Islam or Christianity, and from these believes that God exists, but doesn't follow any of the formal religions devotedly, but rather, simply says that he believes in God, and then goes on with his daily life without considering the finer aspects of either religion, he probably is not a religious person regarding these religions.

It has to do with the extent or devotion.

Some folks in this forum adamantly proclaim that they are atheists and that Christians or Muslims are nut jobs. These people seem pretty devoted to atheism. Perhaps it is a religion for them while not for others.

"C'mon you guys. This topic is serious."
vs.
""

"Atheists and theists use the same things. The only difference is their focus."
vs.
"Christianity is not really religion...science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism."

"...the fact that science the scientific method are failed sciences."
vs.
"The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has."

"...Science is one of the biggest religions out there..."
vs.
"Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not?...Only religion can do that."

"The point is, both atheists and theists don't know for a fact that God exists or doesn't exist, or that God can or can't affect things outside or inside the minds of any people."
"Christianity is not really religion. It is reality."

But you've cited multiple definitions of the word "religion."  When you do that, your argument immediately becomes inconsistent because proving a point according to one definition says absolutely nothing about what you're trying to prove in the context of the other(s) definition(s).

You need to pick one definition, stick to it, and quit slipping around without any argumentative traction.  If you don't, you just present unconnected ideas that don't in any way support each other.

Wrong. They are not religion when they don't fit the dictionary definitions of the word "religion." When they do, they are.

There is no difference between the belief in the nonexistence of god and the belief in any of the things I just listed. They're all just beliefs. Since none of them fit the dictionary definition, none of them are religions.

You're conflating "beliefs" and "religion." Religion is built around beliefs. Beliefs are not religions. Your understanding of religion would necessitate the acceptance that every individual belief in the world is a separate religion. People who believe aliens crashed in Area 51: religion. People who believe in chemtrails: religion. People who believe Obama is a Muslim: religion. People who believe the fluoridation of water is a conspiracy to control the populace: religion.

None of these things are religions because beliefs are not religions.

Wrong. They are not religion when they don't fit the dictionary definitions of the word "religion." When they do, they are.

Incorrect, it would still be omnipotent.  You're making an incredibly common (holy shit is it common) but incredibly subtle (holy shit is it subtle) mistake.  The resolution comes from an understanding of logical structure.

Logic is self-referential.  Logic says, "sound logic is sound because sound logic says so."

Let's look at that self-relational statement and break it down:

"Sound logic (subject) is sound (object) because [the subject] says so."

What we have here is a relational statement whereby the subject has the capacity to objectify something else.  This means that logic operates at two levels, and this interplay is present at all times in every rational statement that can possibly be made.

First, we have the 'syntax' level of the subject, and the 'object' level of the object.  The syntax level is objective and absolute relative to the object-level, but the object level is only relative to the syntax level.

I'll try to model this with an example:
-  First. imagine that you have a thought.  This thought is merely a mental object.
-  Second, you have a thought about that thought, "I had a thought about an apple."  Here, you are using logical syntax to describe a logical object.
-  Third, you have another thought about the thought you just had, "I was thinking about a thought about an apple."  Note what happens here -- the thought of the apple, which was originally at the syntax or descriptive level, was just thrust down into the object level, and now it, too, is being objectified and described by another syntax-level thought.

This is why remaining logically consistent with paradoxes is so hard.  You need to be very careful about the way that the things you attempt to describe shift between these levels as you describe them.  

The point of this is that every time you find an apparently irreconcilable contradiction with the idea of omnipotence, you can always reintroduce omnipotence at the syntax level as an objective descriptor.  

More generally, the point of this is to highlight that "absolute" and "omnipotent" are still inherently relational to something else, and could be isomorphically limited by higher levels of syntax such that they are both absolute and relative, omnipotent and constrained, etc. at the same time.

You're conflating "beliefs" and "religion." Religion is built around beliefs. Beliefs are not religions. Your understanding of religion would necessitate the acceptance that every individual belief in the world is a separate religion. People who believe aliens crashed in Area 51: religion. People who believe in chemtrails: religion. People who believe Obama is a Muslim: religion. People who believe the fluoridation of water is a conspiracy to control the populace: religion.

None of these things are religions because beliefs are not religions.

If a person had never heard of trigonometry, then picked up a book that briefly talked about trig, he might be a believer in a religious sense, because he saw how trig could exist, yet had very little personal experience with it After the person learned trig and used it, he wouldn't have to be a believer, because then he knew about trig.

Any strong atheist who is a believer without knowing that atheism is full of holes regarding its truth, is really religious in his belief. If he knew about the holes, he might come away from strong belief in atheism, and atheism might become a philosophy to him.

Atheism is a belief, nothing more. It lacks every attribute of religion except for a belief in something. You're focusing on the one thing it has to the exclusion of all the things it doesn't. It's still not a religion, the same way that trigonometry is not a religion. Trigonometry has a lot more in common with religion than atheism does (such as rules for orienting knowledge, belief in irrefutable truths and concepts, etc.), but it's not a religion either.

Then such Intelligent Designer is not omnipotent. If it's defining characteristic is omnipotence, then by definition it should be able to change or render even it's own omnipotence obsolete(Therefore it wouldn't be able to ever be omnipotent again). In either outcomes it means the Intelligent Designer never had omnipotence. Even if said Intelligent Designer made it possible to be both "omnipotent" and "non-omnipotent", it still wouldn't be omnipotent as it added a constraint to itself(non-omnipotence).

That's precisely why atheism is a religion. There is no proof that God does not exist. There is ample evidence that could be attributed to the existence of God. Atheism as a belief is just that, a belief. It is not fact. And it is not very close to fact. Yet there are many people who hold to their belief in atheism very strongly. It is a bare-bones religion

At best, atheism is a philosophy.

Then such Intelligent Designer is not omnipotent. If it's defining characteristic is omnipotence, then by definition it should be able to change or render even it's own omnipotence obsolete(Therefore it wouldn't be able to ever be omnipotent again). In either outcomes it means the Intelligent Designer never had omnipotence. Even if said Intelligent Designer made it possible to be both "omnipotent" and "non-omnipotent", it still wouldn't be omnipotent as it added a constraint to itself(non-omnipotence).

There's no need to change the word. Atheism means something very specific: belief in the nonexistence of god. There are no other attributes to atheism. That's why it's not a religion. Because atheism is not associated with anything else you said. Atheism is NOT a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Atheism is NOT a set of beliefs about the creation of superhuman agency. Atheism does NOT involve devotional or ritual observances. Atheism does NOT contain a moral governing code. All those things that apply to religion do NOT apply to atheism.

Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of god. FULL STOP.