Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Are you hurting so badly that your pain makes you take the good that I say, twist it out of context, and turn it into something bad? You really need to seek help for your emotional pains.

The new high priests are the scientists who lie through their teeth about the truth of the theories. There is no truth to the theories. The only truth is what is factual.

If you truly believe this, you're a hypocrite unless you get off that computer and start living without all the evil false-technology science has provided you, like the Amish do. Use only technology before the scientific method (~pre 1600).

Notice, I said "what is factual." Among the facts of science, there is theory, that which is not fact, that which is science fiction. Some scientists and politicians have promoted some of the science fiction with words that cause people to draw the conclusion that they are saying that it is fact.

So, here you are. Lying about what I say, twisting my wording into something it is not, just to bring your own, painful life out into the open. Get help for yourself. Start by reading the Gospels in the New Testament.

"Let's see. People were sooooo different back 2,000 years ago.

Western people were very different, ethically speaking. If you want some insight on this, compare life in Middle East today to life in modern France,  or just go watch Game of Thrones for a bit, or just read your own fucking Bible.

Back then, virtually everyone was religious, and there were no scientists. What was life like? People were torturing, enslaving, raping and burning each other alive regularly, as in these activities were relatively commonplace.

We don't let theists get away with that shit in the civilized parts of the world anymore. This is because reason slowly compels ethics toward total compassion, and has been doing so for 2,000 years.

People were not very different a mere 2,000 years ago. They all needed air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, clothing and shelter, just like today.

Compassion is fake without God. Atlantis was destroyed by the great flood of Noah's day, simply because the people were becoming less and less compassionate, especially in the fact that they didn't have any compassion for the God Who created them, but rather, turned their backs on Him. It is similar today.

There have always been groups of peaceful people and groups of violent people. Check history. Nothing has changed.

Since compassion is available today as you have said, find some compassionate psychologist to help you fix your mental anguish.

[1714141342]

1714141342

[1714141342]

1714141342

[1714141342]

1714141342

[1714141342]

1714141342

[1714141342]

1714141342

[1714141342]

1714141342

[Beliathon]

There have always been groups of peaceful people and groups of violent people. Check history. Nothing has changed.

I checked, expert consensus is that the Printing Press (=dawn of mass literacy) and advent of gunpowder changed everything, destroyed the Divine Right of Kings and gutted the power of the Church. The rise of the modern nation state resulted from this political turmoil.

And now with the internet we're back again to the beginning of the great Cycle of Social Change.

[cryptodevil]

With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer.  

Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being.

Sentence fragment.  "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what?  I'm not getting on your case for a typo.  I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence.

I meant the "Simply because . . ." on the basis of an answer to your rebuttal concerning my assertion that there is no 'need' for a 'God' to explain how our Universe works. Try reading it as though I were answering to you as though you had said, "Why do you believe your assertion to be true". Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough in that sense and so you read it as the lead-in to an assertion, as opposed to the clarification of a previous answer.

So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s).

This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing.  When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions.  You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not.  If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of any assumption.

And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope.  You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for."  It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying.

I am applying Occam's razor in determining, in that it is possible for us to hypothesize explanations for Universal characteristics which are drawn from already-proven scientific theory, possible answers to questions about our Universe which have yet to be more definitely proven through multiple-disciplinary scientific observation and measurement. If we can propose answers which are at least based on what we know, as opposed to answers based on spurious and wildly speculative arbitrary claims towards entities derived solely from human imagination for which there exists no quantifiable characteristic, ergo far more complex given that non-quantifiable characteristics of an entity require the introduction of a whole new realm of supposition outside of known Universal laws, then we are more likely to be introducing elements which are closer to defining the true characteristics of the thing we are seeking to understand.

On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe.  Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes.

You are basing your argument on scientific limitation through technological measurement on a single-point of data, namely, a telescope, which you already know to be insufficient a reliable empirical observation, yet you show you are more than aware of the multi-disciplined nature of accepted scientific theory by mentioning the need for objective reasoning through logic and, of course, the use of mathematics. But in citing how erroneously interpreted a measurement can be from the objective data gathered from a single piece of technology, you are ignoring the fact that all accepted scientific theory is based on numerous technological tools, as well as logic and maths.

We don't have to rely on our faulty perceptions and we don't need to imagine ourselves an omnipotent super-being as a reasonable answer to anything because said super-being would be infinitely more complex as it would need to exist outside of Universal natural law.

But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us.

That sounds to me like a plea for science to stop being so unaccommodating to the idea of a God! Trouble is, you want the 'issue' explored and, let's be honest here, science is more than willing to explore anything and everything that it is reasonable to study, but as we have covered long-previously, you cannot define any element of this 'God' because, by its very nature, it is supposedly beyond our Universe. So how can we study something for which exists no definable characteristic other than the claimed omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? The only way to study for something like that is to go all 'god of the gaps' which I'm sure you're not willing to accept as a reasonable position because it essentially says if we don't have an answer yet for what goes in that gap in our understanding, then God.

Edit:  The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with.  Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy.  Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction."  A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.

LOL, ok fair point. I know how much you love yourself plenty of philosophy. I'm just saying that you appear too ready to use broad philosophical brushstrokes to claim, "Hey, there could be a God", while ignoring the practical realities of what that actually translates to in terms of the difference between there being a invisible incorporeal floating dragon in your garage or something that you've probably just imagined up as being possibly there.

[pureelite]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

Well, because they are apostates from the faith, renounced the faith because they were otherwise persuaded not to believe in anything, and annoy everyone who opposes them, and those who have their faith or religion annoys them.

[Beliathon]

Well, because they are apostates from the faith, renounced the faith because they were otherwise persuaded not to believe in anything, and annoy everyone who opposes them, and those who have their faith or religion annoys them.

1. Not all atheists were ever faithful to begin with, ergo only some atheists are apostates from "the" faith. This may come as a shock to you, but there are atheist/agnostic parents raising children.

2. There are many different faiths (cults of makebelieve), not just yours. Science rejects all faith equally and without discrimination. Science demands evidence - observation and measurement.

[BADecker]

Well, because they are apostates from the faith, renounced the faith because they were otherwise persuaded not to believe in anything, and annoy everyone who opposes them, and those who have their faith or religion annoys them.

1. Not all atheists were ever faithful to begin with, ergo only some atheists are apostates from "the" faith. This may come as a shock to you, but there are atheist/agnostic parents raising children.

2. There are many different faiths, not just one. Science rejects all faith equally and without discrimination. Science demands observation and measurement.

This is so funny. Why? Because it is so hypocritical.

If science only involved the scientific method and the things that are absolutely proven as fact, then the bolded statement, above, might approach truth. But since science includes many theories that are almost comical in their absurdity, and since science often maintains itself on pure probability (quantum mechanics and quantum math) rather than anything factual, science, itself, is fraught with faith throughout. The problem with the faith of science is, science won't even recognize that it is God that it is basing its faith on. Because of this, it is science that is acting on blind faith more than any formal religion could ever think to.

[Beliathon]

Some neurolinguistics experts classify religion as a language virus, which short-circuits critical thinking pathways in the brain. Exhibit A:

If science only involved the scientific method and the things that are absolutely proven as fact, then the bolded statement, above, might approach truth. But since science includes many theories that are almost comical in their absurdity, and since science often maintains itself on pure probability (quantum mechanics and quantum math) rather than anything factual, science, itself, is fraught with faith throughout. The problem with the faith of science is, science won't even recognize that it is God that it is basing its faith on. Because of this, it is science that is acting on blind faith more than any formal religion could ever think to.

[BADecker]

Some neurolinguistics experts classify religion as a language virus, which short-circuits critical thinking pathways in the brain. Exhibit A:

If science only involved the scientific method and the things that are absolutely proven as fact, then the bolded statement, above, might approach truth. But since science includes many theories that are almost comical in their absurdity, and since science often maintains itself on pure probability (quantum mechanics and quantum math) rather than anything factual, science, itself, is fraught with faith throughout. The problem with the faith of science is, science won't even recognize that it is God that it is basing its faith on. Because of this, it is science that is acting on blind faith more than any formal religion could ever think to.

I like science fiction stories, as well. I simply never wrapped myself up in it so deeply that it became a part of my life.

[Beliathon]

I like science fiction stories, as well. I simply never wrapped myself up in it so deeply that it became a part of my life.

I wasn't talking about science fiction.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/overview.html

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=memes+anthropology&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C16

[BADecker]

I like science fiction stories, as well. I simply never wrapped myself up in it so deeply that it became a part of my life.

I wasn't talking about science fiction.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/overview.html

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=memes+anthropology&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C16

Now you tell me!   

[the joint]

With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer.  

Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being.

Sentence fragment.  "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what?  I'm not getting on your case for a typo.  I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence.

I meant the "Simply because . . ." on the basis of an answer to your rebuttal concerning my assertion that there is no 'need' for a 'God' to explain how our Universe works. Try reading it as though I were answering to you as though you had said, "Why do you believe your assertion to be true". Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough in that sense and so you read it as the lead-in to an assertion, as opposed to the clarification of a previous answer.

Ah, I see

So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s).

This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing.  When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions.  You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not.  If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of any assumption.

And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope.  You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for."  It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying.

I am applying Occam's razor in determining, in that it is possible for us to hypothesize explanations for Universal characteristics which are drawn from already-proven scientific theory, possible answers to questions about our Universe which have yet to be more definitely proven through multiple-disciplinary scientific observation and measurement. If we can propose answers which are at least based on what we know, as opposed to answers based on spurious and wildly speculative arbitrary claims towards entities derived solely from human imagination for which there exists no quantifiable characteristic, ergo far more complex given that non-quantifiable characteristics of an entity require the introduction of a whole new realm of supposition outside of known Universal laws, then we are more likely to be introducing elements which are closer to defining the true characteristics of the thing we are seeking to understand.

I'll get to this at the end of reply.  As a primer, let's just say that there are philosophical and logical reasons which provide a basis for the fact that invoking God as I do is not a spurious, wildy speculative claim.

On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe.  Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes.

You are basing your argument on scientific limitation through technological measurement on a single-point of data, namely, a telescope, which you already know to be insufficient a reliable empirical observation, yet you show you are more than aware of the multi-disciplined nature of accepted scientific theory by mentioning the need for objective reasoning through logic and, of course, the use of mathematics. But in citing how erroneously interpreted a measurement can be from the objective data gathered from a single piece of technology, you are ignoring the fact that all accepted scientific theory is based on numerous technological tools, as well as logic and maths.

We don't have to rely on our faulty perceptions and we don't need to imagine ourselves an omnipotent super-being as a reasonable answer to anything because said super-being would be infinitely more complex as it would need to exist outside of Universal natural law.

But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us.

That sounds to me like a plea for science to stop being so unaccommodating to the idea of a God! Trouble is, you want the 'issue' explored and, let's be honest here, science is more than willing to explore anything and everything that it is reasonable to study, but as we have covered long-previously, you cannot define any element of this 'God' because, by its very nature, it is supposedly beyond our Universe. So how can we study something for which exists no definable characteristic other than the claimed omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? The only way to study for something like that is to go all 'god of the gaps' which I'm sure you're not willing to accept as a reasonable position because it essentially says if we don't have an answer yet for what goes in that gap in our understanding, then God.[/quote]

This also ties in with my "primer."  For simplicity, I'll reserve my full reply until the end.

Edit:  The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with.  Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy.  Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction."  A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.

LOL, ok fair point. I know how much you love yourself plenty of philosophy. I'm just saying that you appear too ready to use broad philosophical brushstrokes to claim, "Hey, there could be a God", while ignoring the practical realities of what that actually translates to in terms of the difference between there being a invisible incorporeal floating dragon in your garage or something that you've probably just imagined up as being possibly there.


[/quote]

Okay, here we go.  Finally there

The problem here is two-fold:

First, it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent.  This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference.  Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot.  Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM.

Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy.  This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints.  So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint.

This is critically important because it means one cannot be the other.  If an ID omnipotently assumes a level of topological constraint, it does not lose any aspect of its identity because it remains omnipotent and thus is still equal to itself.  However, if an FSM omnipotently changes its topological constraints, e.g. it becomes a teapot or a dragon, then its core identity is changed and is no longer equal to itself.  An FSM who becomes a teapot is no longer an FSM no matter how omnipotent it is.

Second, and stemming from this first point, we must then concede that if an ID exists, it falls totally outside of observation and empiricism, and is therefore a priori untouchable by empirical science.  Therefore, Occam's Razor, which only applies to empirical phenomena, is irrelevant.  What then matters is whether an ID is implied by logical necessity, and the method of exploration required to determine this is in no way based upon observation of empirical events.  There needn't be any assumption of a "God-of-the-gaps" if you can determine what is logically necessary at a fundamental level, and at a 100% level of tautological confidence.

[BADecker]

Okay, here we go.  Finally there

The problem here is two-fold:

First, it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent.  This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference.  Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot.  Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM.

Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy.  This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints.  So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint.

This is critically important because it means one cannot be the other.  If an ID omnipotently assumes a level of topological constraint, it does not lose any aspect of its identity because it remains omnipotent and thus is still equal to itself.  However, if an FSM omnipotently changes its topological constraints, e.g. it becomes a teapot or a dragon, then its core identity is changed and is no longer equal to itself.  An FSM who becomes a teapot is no longer an FSM no matter how omnipotent it is.

Second, and stemming from this first point, we must then concede that if an ID exists, it falls totally outside of observation and empiricism, and is therefore a priori untouchable by empirical science.  Therefore, Occam's Razor, which only applies to empirical phenomena, is irrelevant.  What then matters is whether an ID is implied by logical necessity, and the method of exploration required to determine this is in no way based upon observation of empirical events.  There needn't be any assumption of a "God-of-the-gaps" if you can determine what is logically necessary at a fundamental level, and at a 100% level of tautological confidence.

My only questions about this are:

1. If God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make Himself to be within the universe and outside of it, entirely, and at the same time, while not allowing the universe to have anything to do with anything outside of it, and vice versa, except that He allowed it to be so in certain instances?

2. Is there any way an Objective God could let some people believe in Him while completely allowing those people who didn't believe in Him to not even recognize that He exists, and also letting a method exist to reach those people who didn't believe in Him so that now and again some of them would become believers?

[bumm]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

i think religion was made by people for the people, so that they learn discipline, stay focused and absorb some good character. but there are lots of things which need explanation. atheists refuse to believe in things which do not have any physical presence. they find it illogical to follow something blindly. but this is not the reason for hating religion. the main problem with religion is it creates divide among the people who can be united. secondly it is also being used as a business tool (at least here). may be main reason for hating religion..   

[BADecker]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

i think religion was made by people for the people, so that they learn discipline, stay focused and absorb some good character. but there are lots of things which need explanation. atheists refuse to believe in things which do not have any physical presence. they find it illogical to follow something blindly. but this is not the reason for hating religion. the main problem with religion is it creates divide among the people who can be united. secondly it is also being used as a business tool (at least here). may be main reason for hating religion..   

This ^^ thinking is reasonable.

Many atheists use the word "atheism" incorrectly. They are not atheists as much as they are agnostics.

I think that it is similar for the word "religion." I don't know what word would be a good word to take the place of "religion," but some of the dictionary definitions for both words, "atheism" and "religion," are not what people often think of. In fact, some of the definitions of both words overlap, making atheism fall within the classification as a religion... and maybe religion fall within the classification as atheism a little.

[Beliathon]

I forgot to mention, another reason I hate religion is because it's so fucking boring. One book? You GOTTA be kidding me, even the LIBRARY is infinitely more exciting than a church.

Think about how retarded it is that in 2015, when nine year olds have pocket-computers linking them to the entire compendium of human knowledge, we still have entire buildings dedicated to the study of one book.

#Libraries_Not_Churchs

[the joint]

Okay, here we go.  Finally there

The problem here is two-fold:

First, it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent.  This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference.  Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot.  Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM.

Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy.  This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints.  So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint.

This is critically important because it means one cannot be the other.  If an ID omnipotently assumes a level of topological constraint, it does not lose any aspect of its identity because it remains omnipotent and thus is still equal to itself.  However, if an FSM omnipotently changes its topological constraints, e.g. it becomes a teapot or a dragon, then its core identity is changed and is no longer equal to itself.  An FSM who becomes a teapot is no longer an FSM no matter how omnipotent it is.

Second, and stemming from this first point, we must then concede that if an ID exists, it falls totally outside of observation and empiricism, and is therefore a priori untouchable by empirical science.  Therefore, Occam's Razor, which only applies to empirical phenomena, is irrelevant.  What then matters is whether an ID is implied by logical necessity, and the method of exploration required to determine this is in no way based upon observation of empirical events.  There needn't be any assumption of a "God-of-the-gaps" if you can determine what is logically necessary at a fundamental level, and at a 100% level of tautological confidence.

My only questions about this are:

1. If God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make Himself to be within the universe and outside of it, entirely, and at the same time, while not allowing the universe to have anything to do with anything outside of it, and vice versa, except that He allowed it to be so in certain instances?

2. Is there any way an Objective God could let some people believe in Him while completely allowing those people who didn't believe in Him to not even recognize that He exists, and also letting a method exist to reach those people who didn't believe in Him so that now and again some of them would become believers?

1) Assuming God must therefore be outside the Universe could in this case be viewed as a semantic limitation of an empirical worldview.  I much prefer to use mathematical sets, specifically Real and Unreal.  If God is real, then He must necessarily be within the set of reality, and there could be nothing real enough outside of Reality so as to be able to determine it or create it (hence reality must create and/or determine itself).  I'd also point out that your own thoughts or feelings cannot be empirically observed.  Would you conclude they are unreal or outside of the Universe?

2) Yes, and I actually attempted to linguistically model this within this thread.  The most general modeling, which requires a lot of explanation, is that God : reality :: man : perceptions.  You could say God is trying to know Himself and self-actualize via a superpositional, singular act of creation; that reality is essentially a theory of itself; that we are stratified, isomorphic images of God who attempt to know ourselves and self-actualize via our perceptions of objective reality and the theories we derive therefrom.  Objectivity is a relation.  At the "god-level," He knows Himself objectively relative to his creation.  At the "stratified-level," we know ourselves relative to the theories we form about objective reality as it is perceived.  There must always be a subjective anchor by which objective reality can be known, and it is known in terms of the subjective anchor itself.  

Edit:  Phrased another way, consider God in terms of both objectivity and relativity, where "objective" God is monistic, and "relative" God is stratified, i.e. "objective god" is distributing its monistic structure or essence into its stratified constituents.  This stratification allows for diversity in essence.  Accordingly, one person who claims Jesus is the only way may be completely correct, and as correct as someone else who says Allah is the only way -- what the two share is a recognition of the monistic essence in spite of its diversity.  However, one who rejects the essence altogether may be in trouble, for he rejects the means by which he can self-actualize and know his true nature as a part of that essence.

[camelson]

I forgot to mention, another reason I hate religion is because it's so fucking boring. One book? You GOTTA be kidding me, even the LIBRARY is infinitely more exciting than a church.

Think about how retarded it is that in 2015, when nine year olds have pocket-computers linking them to the entire compendium of human knowledge, we still have entire buildings dedicated to the study of one book.

#Libraries_Not_Churchs

You are In Islam there are two ways where you can get Knowledge about each and every thing.
The Quran
The Sunnah of Holy Prophet S.A.W

Quran E Hakeem is the last book of Allah Almighty which is revealed on the last and beloved prophet OF Allah Almighty. This book tells the complete code of life. It is the book of wisdom. It addresses the every issue of this life and the next world. The teachings of Quran are not for only particular nation but for the whole community. It is not a profound Book discussing only crime and punishment but it is a Book that talks of God, His relationship with man, man’s relationship with other men and man’s relationship with nature. There are many issues which are addressed in Quran E Hakeem. There are certain major themes of Quran E Hakeem. The discussion on these themes is given below:-

Allah and His unity
Mohammad and the Prophets
Islam and other religions
Man as individual
Man as social
Satan and Evil
The concept of life after death
All the ways of life
and much more.....

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I forgot to mention, another reason I hate religion is because it's so fucking boring. One book? You GOTTA be kidding me, even the LIBRARY is infinitely more exciting than a church.

Think about how retarded it is that in 2015, when nine year olds have pocket-computers linking them to the entire compendium of human knowledge, we still have entire buildings dedicated to the study of one book.

#Libraries_Not_Churchs

I don't know how anyone can read the bible and call it boring.

And it's a bit more than just "one book"...there are 66 books in the bible.

[camelson]

I forgot to mention, another reason I hate religion is because it's so fucking boring. One book? You GOTTA be kidding me, even the LIBRARY is infinitely more exciting than a church.

Think about how retarded it is that in 2015, when nine year olds have pocket-computers linking them to the entire compendium of human knowledge, we still have entire buildings dedicated to the study of one book.

#Libraries_Not_Churchs

I don't know how anyone can read the bible and call it boring.

Yes this is the problem, they are not reading. They just pick one two words from the above post and start predicting from themseleves. They dont even bother of posting false stories, which they are posting from themselves.

[the joint]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

i think religion was made by people for the people, so that they learn discipline, stay focused and absorb some good character. but there are lots of things which need explanation. atheists refuse to believe in things which do not have any physical presence. they find it illogical to follow something blindly. but this is not the reason for hating religion. the main problem with religion is it creates divide among the people who can be united. secondly it is also being used as a business tool (at least here). may be main reason for hating religion..    

Many atheists use the word "atheism" incorrectly. They are not atheists as much as they are agnostics.

...In fact, some of the definitions of both words overlap, making atheism fall within the classification as a religion...

Except where they don't overlap, which you never acknowledge, and in which case you use the terms incorrectly (like when trying to communicate with virtually everyone who uses the words because of their distinctions).

But it doesn't matter, anyway, unless you're just trying to win a pointless semantic argument.  Could you contribute something of practical value?