Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[strayanbit]

I know Zeus is up there, isn't that enough for you? Why don't you follow the one true god?

[organofcorti]

A small group of loud atheists live it as it was a religion

And the rest of the atheists live it as part of the general religion of their lives.

Not really. You use the word religion in a way that is not acceptable by the rest of the world. All of the definitions of religion which I could find include a belief or faith in a god or the supernatural.

You've made up your own meaning for religion, which is simply "Anything on which you spend a lot of energy". This means everyone posting here has multiple religions - any hobby you have (such as correcting logical fallacies posted by forum members) becomes a religion to you.

By your own definition, you simply posting here regularly is a religion - you have at least two religions, maybe more.

That's the way we are, isn't it. If you picked up one of the original printings of the Bible by the King James crew, you wouldn't be able to read it except that you had special training. And, the funny thing about it, it is English.

As far as how I use the word "religion," there are many in the world who understand it that way.

As far as making up my own meaning for the word "religion," my restating of the definition using other words than the dictionary I quoted previously, is a thing that kids are taught in schools all over. They are taught to say "it" in their own words. The idea is to get an understanding of something by the words used.

In the definition of "religion" found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t, definition number 6 states:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

While this definition is most certainly not the popular one, it is still part of the meaning of the word "religion."

As far as I, myself, having more than one religion, perhaps it is not incorrect to suggest this. But, maybe it is all part of my personal religion. How many religions do you have?

Part of a meaning is not the entire meaning. Unless there's a god or supernatural beliefs involved, your definition of religion is only part the usual definitions of religion. Therefore you aren't using the word the way it is usually defined.

[BADecker]

Part of a meaning is not the entire meaning. Unless there's a god or supernatural beliefs involved, your definition of religion is only part the usual definitions of religion. Therefore you aren't using the word the way it is usually defined.

If you say, "For the purposes of our discussion here, 'religion' shall mean such and such, and 'atheism' shall mean this and that," then you are absolutely correct, but ONLY if you can get an agreement from forum members to use your definitions.

That isn't what we have been doing in this discussion, although you might be trying to sneak in a quasi-agreement among forum members regarding definitions that you prefer. Rather, we have, in general, been using words according to their dictionary definitions.

With regard to the dictionary definition of "religion," "atheism" fits the meaning of the word "religion." And it doesn't only fit it regarding the part that says:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice

but it also fits, to some extent, the major part that says:

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

which is the main definition.

Notice the portion of this main definition that says, "... when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." This portion is preceded by the word "especially," denoting that the definition, also, stands without some kind of supreme being included.

Notice that portions following the "superhuman" part use the words "usually" and "often," denoting that the definition can stand without the portions that "usually" and "often" are referring to.

Because of this, we can rightfully say that religion means, simply:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

What is interesting is that atheists are full of such beliefs in science theory, which has not been proven to be fact. Thus, atheism is definitely a religion.

[BitNow]

Because of this, we can rightfully say that religion means, simply:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

What is interesting is that atheists are full of such beliefs in science theory, which has not been proven to be fact. Thus, atheism is definitely a religion.

If you accept that definition as a true one, than you need to define the word Universe as there is no word Universe in the Bible.
That is the definition in my Language (from the most respected italian language source):
"religione Complesso di credenze, sentimenti, riti che legano un individuo o un gruppo umano con ciò che esso ritiene sacro, in particolare con la divinità, oppure il complesso dei dogmi, dei precetti, dei riti che costituiscono un dato culto religioso"

EN:
"Religion: set of beliefs, sentiments, rituals that tie a person or a group of people with what he/she/it believes to be sacred, in specific with the reference to the divinity, or the set of dogmas, precepts and rituals that form a particular religious cult"
Ref: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/religione/

The most respected language source in my Country has the word deity in the definition: no way to get out.

At this point I prefer the definition with the word Universe in it.

More on the subject:
"Da dove derivi religio è ancora una vexata quæstio anche se un punto fermo può essere posto: questo termine è originario dell'antica lingua latina e non esiste nelle altre lingue coeve una qualche parola che gli corrisponda appieno[15]. È un termine forgiato, quindi, nella cultura romana, modellato nella religione pagana romana e rimodulato, infine, dal Cristianesimo[15]. Sull'etimologia di religio si confrontano da sempre tre tesi: la ciceroniana, la lattanziana e l'agostiniana. Intorno alle dette tesi, che sono riprodotte anche in alcuni scritti di teologia dogmatica[16], si è arrovellato il dibattito filologico nel corso della storia senza giungere ad una conclusione certa che manca ancor oggi anche se, tra i filologi moderni e contemporanei, la tesi agostiniana sembra essere stata tralasciata e si registra una certa preferenza per la tesi ciceroniana rispetto alla lattanziana."
EN:
"Religion comes from the lating word religio (verb).
From were the word religio cames is a vexata quæstio (an open discussion on what everything has been said and anyone has been spoken) but un firm point can be inferred: this word is originated in the ancient Latin language and do not exists in others coetaneous languages a word that is fully synonymous of religio. Is a forged term in roman culture, modeled in roman pagan rituals and remodeled from Christianity. On the etimology of the word religion there are three thesis: ciceronians, lattanzianans and agostinians. Around those three thesis, that are also reproduced on some dogmatic theology tomes, a philological debat had been striven in history without coming to a agreed conclusion, although if on modern philologists agostinians thesis has been abandoned while ciceronian thesis is preferred over lattanzianans one."
Ref: http://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Religione_(etimologia)


Best regards.

[BADecker]

Because of this, we can rightfully say that religion means, simply:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

What is interesting is that atheists are full of such beliefs in science theory, which has not been proven to be fact. Thus, atheism is definitely a religion.

If you accept that definition as a true one, than you need to define the word Universe as there is no word Universe in the Bible.


Best regards.

None of the English words or Italian words are in the Old Testament. Why not? Because the whole thing was written in Hebrew.

The word "universe" is simply another English way of saying "heavens and earth."

Because of this, "universe" IS in the Bible.

In addition, in the New International 1984 translation of the Bible, the word "universe" is found in the New Testament in First Corinthians 4:9 where Saint Paul says:

For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.

"Universe" is also in Ephesians 4:10 where Saint Paul is talking about Jesus when he says:

He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

Then in Philippians 2:14-16:

14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16 as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing.

The writer to the Hebrews says in Hebrews 1:1,2:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Then, in Hebrews 11:3:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The word for "universe" in Italian is "universo." Perhaps "universo" is not found in the Italian Bible. Should you maybe go back to school to find out?



EDIT:
Ebrei 11:3 dice, La Bibbia Della Gioia (BDG):

Per fede, credendo in Dio, sappiamo che l’intero universo è stato creato per mezzo della Parola di Dio, e che le cose visibili hanno avuto origine da quelle invisibili.

[BADecker]

The word Univers is not found in the Old Testament but only in the New Testament.

Does this should ring you a bell?


Best regards.

How many times must I repeat myself. As I said in my previous post, the word "universe" is one of the translations for the Hebrew words "heavens and earth" into English. Universe is in the O.T. It is there in meaning.

In addition, the New Testament is part of the Bible. For people following the time of Jesus, it is the most important part of the Bible.

[BitNow]

The word Univers is not found in the Old Testament but only in the New Testament.

Does this should ring you a bell?


Best regards.

How many times must I repeat myself. As I said in my previous post, the word "universe" is one of the translations for the Hebrew words "heavens and earth" into English. Universe is in the O.T. It is there in meaning.

In addition, the New Testament is part of the Bible. For people following the time of Jesus, it is the most important part of the Bible.

The Ciceronian Thesis on the word Religio (prefix of the word Religion):
"coloro, invece, che diligentemente riesaminassero e, tanto quanto, osservassero tutto ciò che fosse pertinente il culto degli dei sono detti religiosi (che deriva) da relegere, come eleganti (deriva) da eligere, diligenti (deriva) da diligere, intelligenti (deriva) da intelligere; infatti, in tutte queste parole è contenuto il valore di legere, lo stesso che in religioso."
EN:
"Who will diligently reexamine and, at the same level, rewatch everything concerned deities cults are called religious from relegate, like classy from choosy, diligent from diligere, intelligent from intelligence, in every one of those words it is contained the verb tie which is the same of religious."
Ref: http://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Religione_(etimologia)

In others word the term religion is accepted to indicate a set of rituals a person make (in respect to the deity).

Now, I ask you BADecker: how a group of atheists have the same rituals?


Best regards.



PS:: I omitted the lattanzianans and agostinians thesis are the Ciceronian thesis is the one most accredited on modern philology.

[BADecker]

The word Univers is not found in the Old Testament but only in the New Testament.

Does this should ring you a bell?


Best regards.

How many times must I repeat myself. As I said in my previous post, the word "universe" is one of the translations for the Hebrew words "heavens and earth" into English. Universe is in the O.T. It is there in meaning.

In addition, the New Testament is part of the Bible. For people following the time of Jesus, it is the most important part of the Bible.

The Ciceronian Thesis on the word Religio (prefix of the word Religion):
"coloro, invece, che diligentemente riesaminassero e, tanto quanto, osservassero tutto ciò che fosse pertinente il culto degli dei sono detti religiosi (che deriva) da relegere, come eleganti (deriva) da eligere, diligenti (deriva) da diligere, intelligenti (deriva) da intelligere; infatti, in tutte queste parole è contenuto il valore di legere, lo stesso che in religioso."
EN:
"Who will diligently reexamine and, at the same level, rewatch everything concerned deities cults are called religious from relegate, like classy from choosy, diligent from diligere, intelligent from intelligence, in every one of those words it is contained the verb tie which is the same of religious."
Ref: http://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Religione_(etimologia)

In others word the term religion is accepted to indicate a set of rituals a person make (in respect to the deity).

Now, I ask you BADecker: how a group of atheists have the same rituals?


Best regards.



PS:: I omitted the lattanzianans and agostinians thesis are the Ciceronian thesis is the one most accredited on modern philology.

"Religio" is not an English word. If you use it in regard to the English language, you need to define it. If you define it, other people may or may not accept your definition of it. If enough people accept your definition of it and start to use it, it might get into the English dictionaries as an English word. Right now, it doesn't have any English meaning.

[BitNow]

"Religio" is not an English word. If you use it in regard to the English language, you need to define it. If you define it, other people may or may not accept your definition of it. If enough people accept your definition of it and start to use it, it might get into the English dictionaries as an English word. Right now, it doesn't have any English meaning.

Well the etymology is latin if you want to understand the word you should know where the word is coming from.

Do you agree on the methodology?


Best regards.

[strayanbit]

Probably what we can agree on is that for whatever reason we can't agree, this isnt a discussion thread, it is an argument thread, started by a troll.

[BADecker]

"Religio" is not an English word. If you use it in regard to the English language, you need to define it. If you define it, other people may or may not accept your definition of it. If enough people accept your definition of it and start to use it, it might get into the English dictionaries as an English word. Right now, it doesn't have any English meaning.

Well the etymology is latin if you want to understand the word you should know where the word is coming from.

Do you agree on the methodology?


Best regards.

Right at the moment, I am not interested in understanding the word. Thus, I am not sure if I can agree on the methodology.

[BADecker]

Whatever the word "religio" means or meant at one time, it has no meaning in English now.

Look up the dictionary definition of religion. From that, you will be able to see that atheism is a religion.

[BADecker]

Probably what we can agree on is that for whatever reason we can't agree, this isnt a discussion thread, it is an argument thread, started by a troll.

Can you make it a better discussion thread by explaining how you know that legendster is a troll?

[strayanbit]

Oh sorry, I was mistaken... I thought you had started the thread!

[BitNow]

Right at the moment, I am not interested in understanding the word. Thus, I am not sure if I can agree on the methodology.

You are not interested in understanding the word...

Strange behaviour for a person that claim to put all atheist under the same word (Religion) he's not interested in understanding.

Atheism is a capital sin.


Best regards.

[strayanbit]

Atheism is a capital sin.

Not have an imaginary friend is worthy of death?   Most atheists dont hate religion, but that sort of attitude would certainly swing a few people.

[organofcorti]

Part of a meaning is not the entire meaning. Unless there's a god or supernatural beliefs involved, your definition of religion is only part the usual definitions of religion. Therefore you aren't using the word the way it is usually defined.

If you say, "For the purposes of our discussion here, 'religion' shall mean such and such, and 'atheism' shall mean this and that," then you are absolutely correct, but ONLY if you can get an agreement from forum members to use your definitions.

That isn't what we have been doing in this discussion, although you might be trying to sneak in a quasi-agreement among forum members regarding definitions that you prefer. Rather, we have, in general, been using words according to their dictionary definitions.

With regard to the dictionary definition of "religion," "atheism" fits the meaning of the word "religion." And it doesn't only fit it regarding the part that says:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice

but it also fits, to some extent, the major part that says:

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

which is the main definition.

Notice the portion of this main definition that says, "... when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." This portion is preceded by the word "especially," denoting that the definition, also, stands without some kind of supreme being included.

Notice that portions following the "superhuman" part use the words "usually" and "often," denoting that the definition can stand without the portions that "usually" and "often" are referring to.

You're appealing to authority, and then you cherry-pick the meaning you want. There are many suggested definitions given by each authority, some contradictory. What makes your definition the most representative?

Nevermind, I can't change your attitude on this point and since they are all based on an appeal to authority there's no logical argument to be made.

Because of this, we can rightfully say that religion means, simply:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

What is interesting is that atheists are full of such beliefs in science theory, which has not been proven to be fact. Thus, atheism is definitely a religion.

Your statement is that religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause AND nature AND purpose of the universe. Logically if any of these are not true, the statement as a whole is not true.

Atheists do not posit a "purpose" to the universe (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology).

Therefore your statement as a whole is not true, and atheism cannot be considered a religion by that definition.

[strayanbit]

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism

    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
    synonyms:   non-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt,

Thank you Google.

[BADecker]

Part of a meaning is not the entire meaning. Unless there's a god or supernatural beliefs involved, your definition of religion is only part the usual definitions of religion. Therefore you aren't using the word the way it is usually defined.

If you say, "For the purposes of our discussion here, 'religion' shall mean such and such, and 'atheism' shall mean this and that," then you are absolutely correct, but ONLY if you can get an agreement from forum members to use your definitions.

That isn't what we have been doing in this discussion, although you might be trying to sneak in a quasi-agreement among forum members regarding definitions that you prefer. Rather, we have, in general, been using words according to their dictionary definitions.

With regard to the dictionary definition of "religion," "atheism" fits the meaning of the word "religion." And it doesn't only fit it regarding the part that says:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice

but it also fits, to some extent, the major part that says:

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

which is the main definition.

Notice the portion of this main definition that says, "... when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." This portion is preceded by the word "especially," denoting that the definition, also, stands without some kind of supreme being included.

Notice that portions following the "superhuman" part use the words "usually" and "often," denoting that the definition can stand without the portions that "usually" and "often" are referring to.

You're appealing to authority, and then you cherry-pick the meaning you want. There are many suggested definitions given by each authority, some contradictory. What makes your definition the most representative?

Nevermind, I can't change your attitude on this point and since they are all based on an appeal to authority there's no logical argument to be made.

You write the language reasonably well. Did you make it up that way, or did you appeal to authority to figure out how to use it?

You mention that "there are many suggested definitions..." You also suggest that I am cherry picking. if I were able, and if they allowed me to print all the definitions, complete, in Bitcointalk, would you even be willing to read them... all? (chuckle)

According to the simple definitions of the online dictionary that I sited, atheism is a religion.

Because of this, we can rightfully say that religion means, simply:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

What is interesting is that atheists are full of such beliefs in science theory, which has not been proven to be fact. Thus, atheism is definitely a religion.

Your statement is that religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause AND nature AND purpose of the universe. Logically if any of these are not true, the statement as a whole is not true.

Atheists do not posit a "purpose" to the universe (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology).

Therefore your statement as a whole is not true, and atheism cannot be considered a religion by that definition.

Actually, the truth doesn't have anything to do with what atheists posit. Since for many atheists, religion is something that they are against for themselves, they simply have a religion of non-religion. I admire how faithful many of them are, that they would continue with their religion of non-religion when all the while they are being shown that they have a religion. Their choice, I guess.

[BADecker]

Right at the moment, I am not interested in understanding the word. Thus, I am not sure if I can agree on the methodology.

You are not interested in understanding the word...

Strange behaviour for a person that claim to put all atheist under the same word (Religion) he's not interested in understanding.

Atheism is a capital sin.


Best regards.

I was referring to "religio." I am not interested in getting into Latin right now.

If atheism is a capital sin, why are there still many atheists alive in the world? I mean, if atheism were a capital sin, atheists would have died the moment they stepped into atheism.

There are former atheists who turned to God and to salvation in Jesus Christ years ago. They truly were atheists in the past. But now they are Christians... God believers. Should they still be executed because of their former atheism? I mean, their former atheism was real. It sits in the timeline. There is no way to erase it from time. It is done. It may be an embarrassment and a shame for them now, but they can't undo it. Should these Christians and God-fearing people be executed because of their former atheism which was real?

There is only one thing that can keep a person from death. It is believing in Jesus Christ for salvation. Believers in Jesus will be raised to everlasting life at the last day. Non-believers will be raised to eternal destruction. That's it. Period.

Do you believe in Jesus for salvation? If not, you are committing a worse sin than the atheism of repentant, former atheists.