Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 434. (Read 901341 times)

Yet people sin. And they are being drawn into Godness, into the Body of Christ, and He in them. So, in a way God sinned even while He did not.

The fact that Jesus didn't know certain things was simply that he set that knowledge aside temporarily, the same as He set His full spiritual form aside when He came as a baby at Bethlehem.

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.

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.

The biblical view of omnipotence is not true omnipotence, rather god in the bible is simply "very powerful". In the bible god cannot sin, and christ does not know the day he is to return on his 2nd coming, so that means god in the bible lacks both omnipotence and omniscience.

Very interesting. The logic seems a bit circular. I'm gonna have to think about this one for a bit. Thanks for the clarification.

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.

This is what the God of the Bible did. He is great beyond the greatest ideas of greatness that we can begin to have.

God did it in the person of Jesus, Who was God as well as man. God died in Jesus, and yet He lives forever in the form of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the whole making of the universe and mankind was God's method of showing the devil and all the angels that God can be omnipotent and not.

Sometimes I wonder if the God of the Bible is as Triune as Christians say. There is evidence that God is far beyond Triune in that people are part of God. People are even above the angels. Jesus quotes the Old Testament saying that we are gods. We might simply be the method God used to be omnipotent at the same time He was not.

In all known possible outcomes, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent. The concept or definition behind the world omnipotence is flawed and cannot actually exist.

1) By making the distinction that an omnipotent deity is "bound" by it's own omnipotence, such that it could not become "un-omnipotent", then said deity is and was never omnipotent.

2) An omnipotent deity should by definition, have the power to do all and everything, even illogical ones. However, by definition, and omnipotent deity would also have the power to render it's own omnipotence obsolete or confirm it never had omnipotence in the first place(See omnipotence paradox).

3) Saying that an omnipotent deity can add restraints upon itself and remain omnipotent is illogical, for adding constraints would instantly end said omnipotence(Omnipotence as a word is without restraint, unlimited, limitless).

No, omnipotence precludes this invalidation precisely because enabling contradictions or paradoxes to exist would necessarily be within the abilities of an omnipotent entity.  There is no reason why an omnipotent entity can't also be constrained; the constraints are topological and they could be removed.

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).

It's in my view that omnipotence is a flawed or illogical word and subsequent definition.

No.  Omnipotence is the defining characteristic of an Intelligent Designer.  In other words, omnipotence (i.e. a total lack of constraint) is the only characteristic which would distinguish an ID's identity as separate from any number of constrained forms it could take (e.g. a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is also omnipotent).  Accordingly, any constraints invoked via that omnipotence constitute topological changes only, and do not in any way change the fundamental nature of its identity.

I would agree that ambiguous definitions are not the best. But that is what we have. If one doesn't like the definitions of his particular religion, perhaps he should change the name of it to something that is less ambiguous. For example. Tis not "atheism," but rather tis "atheism - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." However, rather a long "word," right?

I've never thought of this concept before, but it's interesting to me now. I don't see how omnipotence paradoxes can be self-resolving. If you are omnipotent, you have to have the power to constrain yourself. If you not, you can't be omnipotent. But if you can't over come a restraint, you also can't be omnipotent. Doesn't this invalidate the idea of omnipotence as a whole?

In the same vein, is god "unable" to sin in the bible, or is he just so "good" he doesn't sin? Also, I would probably dispute that god does not sin. There are plenty of stories of wretched behavior by god in the old testament.

That's a good point. But, wouldn't adding constraints "via that omnipotence" end the omnipotence of that deity? An example would be where a initially omnipotent deity decides to end it's omnipotence via it's omnipotence. Therefore the end result would be that said deity would no longer be omnipotent or that it actually never had omnipotence in the first place, and was rather "very powerful".

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon itself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

I didn't say that at all. I make my own claims about Intelligent Design elsewhere.  My specific claim was exactly, "It is silly to believe in something without good reason [instead of evidence]."  Then, I obliged by providing the proof you continue to state you're looking for.

And from that, I'll re-quote the deductive argument:


My claims about whether I believe Intelligent Design actually exists are a separate issue:  To that extent, I have good reason to believe in Intelligent Design.  Evidence is irrelevant.

Other notes:
- I'm not afraid of the LHC.  It's awesome.  But we already know it's an impossibility to reach a theoretical limit of explanation through inductive reasoning, so we already know right off the bat Science has never, will never, and could never provide enough data to construct a theory of Reality at the height of general explanation.  Again, how many dozens of references do you want to support this?  One?  Ten?

- People can be correct for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the correct reasons.  In this case, the latter describes you.  You are totally justified in wanting to remain as logical, un-opinionated, and intellectually honest as possible.  If you don't know where the limits of Empiricism end, then I can't knock you for being ignorant to that knowledge.  But I would simply encourage you to read or re-read about them for yourself, because not only are you straw-manning me to death, but its clear you have some misunderstandings about Empiricism in general, particularly its non-empirical originals (i.e. *entirely* non-empirical origins).

-That deductive argument completely obliterates your point.  Reread it until you understand it.  No intellectual dishonesty on my part, only a projection of yours.

Let's look at the most relevant definition of religion, because you took the sixth most relevant definition and tried to use it to prove your point:

Definition 1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism has one belief: there is no god. It is not a set of beliefs on the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. It does not subscribe to belief in superhuman agency, ritual observances, or a moral code by which to govern the conduct of human affairs. Definition 1 fails entirely.

As for the rest of the definitions, there are no moral codes, rituals, or a defining theory of beliefs that originate from atheism, because atheism is only the belief in the nonexistence of god. That's the beginning and the end of atheism. To the extent there are patterns you recognize from atheists, it is from something that might more closely resemble a "religion" (like secular humanism), but in all relevant applications of the the word religion, atheism doesn't fit. There is no underlying moral code with atheism. The moral compass comes from other schools of thought, like Natural Rights Philosophy or Secular Humanism, not from atheism. The confluence of these schools of thought with atheism are complimentary, but coincidental.

Thank you.

Religious people believe in science. Most of them realize that it was science that pushed the engineers and business people into designing their electric ranges in their kitchens. And they love their electric ranges as much as atheists.

The point you seem to be making is that people who are atheists do not often think of themselves as religious, and atheism as religion. Yet, as I am pointing out, atheism is a religion (at least a philosophy) by the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism, religion, philosophy, God."

If omnipotence is to be: limitless, all powerful, unlimited.

Then we can argue that omnipotence as a concept, does not exist. A better attribute would be "very powerful", but claiming anything or anyone to be "all powerful" is illogical.

In the bible, god is not omnipotent, he is rather "very powerful". He is limited by constraints such as his inability to sin. The bible's view on omnipotence is incorrect.

Then there's the matter that an "omnipotent" deity should be able to do theoretically anything, even outside the boundaries of logic and math. But by definition, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent, showing the invalidity of the concept, "omnipotence" (The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" paradox in omnipotence is valid).

To simply believe something is what theists also believe in. Like some said here, the term religion is grilled in the head of theists and hence they believe in it and same goes for atheists.

I truly agree with @the joint. Atheists believe in science while scientists too make assumptions and their beliefs aren't completely right.

An example: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.

There are many events that happen in life but they have no scientific evidence and hence people don't believe in it.


An excellent argument of science and the beliefs of atheism:


Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being. This objection, however, though emotionally powerful, is not a logical one because the reality of evil does not cancel out the extensive evidence of intelligent and benevolent design in Nature. To use two analogies: the existence of badly constructed buildings in one particular area does not disprove the existence of competent architects elsewhere, anymore than the existence of hatred within some families disproves the reality of human love in others. What the problem of evil does is to raise challenging questions such as: why does God allow it? What is its origin? What, if anything, has God done about it? It does not obliterate the many traces of His goodness and creativity in the world around us. Furthermore, part of the evidence for God’s existence and goodness is that very moral standard which enables us to detect evil and complain about it! Atheism, by contrast, cannot make sense of the problem of evil because it cannot explain how we can attach any objective significance to our thoughts and values if we are merely accidental by-products of an ultimately random and purposeless universe.


Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/does-science-contradict-religion