Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[the joint]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

[celestio]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

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.

[the joint]

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).

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'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.

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.

[celestio]

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).

[BADecker]

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).

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.

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.

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

[jaysabi]

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).

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'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.

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.

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

[celestio]

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).

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.

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.

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.

[the joint]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

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).

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.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[celestio]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

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).

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.

Makes sense...I'll give this more thought.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jaysabi]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

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).

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.

Unrelated, but have you studied philosophy? The way you break things down suggests you might have.

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

You seem to be quite philosophical by the 6th definition. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy?s=t:

philosophy
[fi-los-uh-fee]


noun, plural philosophies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation:
the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them:
the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

 

[the joint]

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).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself 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.

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".

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.

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).

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.

Unrelated, but have you studied philosophy? The way you break things down suggests you might have.

Not too much in a formal setting.  I took a few classes and had six college and post-grad professors tell me I picked the wrong major and should have gone into Philosophy.  Independently, I've been studying it about 13-14 years or so.