Genady

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This has been cleared several posts ago, the word has been replaced by "areligionism", and the question of the OP has been focused on anti-religious feelings.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

In reference to another ongoing thread in this forum, I don't have any feelings about homosexuals and their activities. But I have feelings about religious people. I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them. I'm quite sure that being religious is learned. But what about being an atheist?

dU = δQ + δW It does not matter what one calls δQ as long as the equation holds. You can also say, "the warmness flaws out and the coldness flows in" or "the coldness replaces the warmness", etc.

Sure, accepted. I am really glad that you have found it and thank you, @Lorentz Jr and @md65536.

There would not be photons either, because electro-magnetic wave needs 3D. Without photons, charged particles would not interact. Thus, there will be nothing to hold atoms intact. There would not be objects, just a chaos.

Photons interact with electrons. These 'de-energized photons' would interact with electrons, pick up some energy from the electrons, and would not be 'de-energized' anymore. They would be regular photons, which would be detectable.

You can do the same here.

I don't see how having number of a referenced post instead of a link to the referenced post, would solve these two problems.

I agree, the boxes make it a mess. But one more click eliminates them: when they appear there is an option underneath, "Display as a link instead", underlined. Then, instead of this: it appears like this: Maybe the staff could change the function, so the latter is a default rather than the former?

Right, but why would I use a reference other than for others to read the referenced post? If this is the purpose, the link makes doing so much easier than a number.

Thank you! Why would we need the post numbers then?

Thank you! This is much shorter than how I was doing it. Didn't notice that "posted ... ago" is a link.

The other three languages I know have the same feature. (But this is OT, perhaps.)

If the numbering is not technically possible, then maybe there are alternatives available? E.g., an easy way to link to a post.