Genady

Are we? Maybe mysterious but why supernatural? Isn't the latter quite an abstract concept to be wired for? Maybe we are wired to assume causal relations or correlations even when there are none, e.g., black cat - bad luck, but I don't see a necessary connection between such assumptions and religion.

almost? When going from frame A to frame B, we use in the Lorentz transformation the speed of B relative to A. When going from frame B to frame A, we use in the Lorentz transformation the speed of A relative to B. These two statements are symmetrical. In fact, I've copied and pasted the first to make the second, and then have simply replaced A by B and B by A. How more symmetrical it can be?

Ah, I see. Yes, it is a thermal component of internal energy. It can change without any heat flow, though (in a reference to the OP).

Yes, it is. You're talking about enthalpy, right?

Somewhere back on page 1, the term 'atheist' in this thread has been replaced by the term 'areligionist'.

As you're well aware, internal energy can change without any heat flow. Thus, the OP analogy with "a quantity of water in the body" would not hold.

Since they did it, they have figured out that it does not work on any level, and have it abandoned.

As I've said above, there is no such a thing as "a quantity of heat in a body". Following your logic, there cannot be such a thing as "a quantity of coldness in a body."

Does gravitational lensing affect gravitational waves similarly to the EM ones? (I doubt, because of the non-linearity.)

Thank you, I did not know. Found it here: Enthalpy - Wikipedia It says, Perhaps, not so obsolete, then. PS. Maybe this is another example that belongs to this thread:

AFAIK, there is no such a thing as "a quantity of heat in a body". For the same reason, there cannot be a meaningful concept of "a quantity of coldness in a body."

What do you refer to as "it"? A larger quantity of coldness, where? Let's say a body A gets colder and a body B gets warmer. Can you rephrase your statement for this case?

My road started differently, but perhaps was the same at the end. I grew up not having any religious adults around. God and religion were not in the picture. By the time I started interacting with religious people, at 9-10, I had enough knowledge and critical thinking to see that they are lying. The trust in facts and logic over words and stories is common for both ways. Maybe this trait has some roots in nature. In the words of your quote above, I meant a distinction between "the position that there are no deities" on one hand, and the other two on the other, i.e., "a rejection of the belief that any deities exist" and "an absence of belief in the existence of deities." edit: x-posted with @mistermack's post about his road and a similar message.

Some posts ago I said that I'd change it to 'areligionism', if I could. Maybe, anti-religionism, but with a caveat, thanks to @iNow, that I'm talking only about religions with which I am personally familiar. It has to be so, because the OP is about a personal 'phobia'. I don't like 'antitheism' as it is described by the wikipedia link and by Hitchens. Maybe the difference is between 'not believing in God' and 'not having a belief in God'. The former is atheism. What is a name for the latter?

This has been cleared several posts ago, the word has been replaced by "areligionism", and the question of the OP has been focused on anti-religious feelings.

Mostly Christianity (including Orthodox, Mormons and such) and an orthodox Judaism. The ones that I know something about and had direct contacts with.

Yes. LOL I know some - very few - people like these and I think, "If only you were not religious, we could've been friends."

Yes. The first time. But the next time, when I already know that they are religious, they don't need to do anything, their physical presence is sufficient. Yes, you think it is a response to what they do/did. Perhaps, that's it.

Thank you for the term. I'd like to change the topic from 'Atheism...' to 'Areligionism...' if I could. Yes, they are. But I don't know if they have the bad feelings about the religious people/pigeons I'm talking about. So, with the better terminology, my question is not if becoming religious or areligious is nature or nurture. I also think that it is both. My question is about this: (reminder: a discussion of homophobia was a trigger for this thread) Where did this come from?

Yes, to name them. But not to have them. Yes, to tell. But not believe or not. Anyway, my question in OP was not about a definition of 'atheist.' It was about feeling of dislike / distrust / suspicion / ... toward religious people by a non-religious person. I think you might be right.

8 OK. I think there are about as many reasons as the number of people who do so.

I wonder about the other way around: why do you care? (This is psychology forum, right?)

I mean a human who has no religious beliefs, no religious rituals, no religious connection to others, no religious whatever. I don't think it needs a criterion based on a previous framework.

I disagree. I was an atheist before I knew about religion. I just didn't know then that I was an atheist.

I know a couple of them. They are really proud of their achievement and shrug about 'temporary glitches'.  They are really technicians, with no wider knowledge or interests.